UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE    OF    AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL    EXPERIMENT   STATION 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


THE  CALIFORNIA  POULTRY  INDUSTRY: 
A  STATISTICAL  STUDY 


EDWIN  C.  VOORHIES 


BULLETIN  413 

November,  1926 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1926 


This  bulletin  has  been  made  possible  through  the  cooperation  of 
many  agencies  which  have  generously  contributed  from  their  data  and 
time.  Among  these  are  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  the  California  State  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture,  the  United  States  Department  of  Commerce,  the 
Agricultural  Legislative  Committee,  the  Produce  Exchange  of  Los 
Angeles,  the  Poultry  Producers  of  Central  California,  the  Poultry 
Producers  of  Southern  California,  the  Poultrymen's  Cooperative  Mill- 
ing Association  (Los  Angeles),  the  Sperry  Flour  Company,  Albers 
Brothers  Milling  Company,  Swift  and  Company,  Armour  and  Com- 
pany, Petaluma  Egg  and  Poultry  Company,  Pacific  Egg  Producers, 
Southern  Pacific  Railroad,  Los  Angeles  Chamber  of  Commerce,  San 
Francisco  Wholesale  Dairy  Produce  Exchange,  and  Poultry  Producers 
of  San  Diego. 

Thanks  are  due  G.  A.  Read,  Field  Service  Department  Pioneer 
Hatchery,  Petaluma;  Bert  L.  Smith,  Assistant  Farm  Advisor,  Oro- 
ville,  Butte  County;  Herbert  E.  Barker,  Itinerant  Assistant  Farm 
Advisor,  Berkeley,  California,  J.  Murray  Davison,  Senior  student, 
College  of  Agriculture,  and  S.  A.  Mosk,  Senior  student,  College  of 
Commerce,  for  their  assistance  in  the  statistical  computations  for  this 
bulletin.  At  the  time  of  the  preparation  of  the  manuscript  for  this 
paper  the  above  mentioned  were  advanced  students  in  the  University 
of  California. 


THE  CALIFORNIA  POULTRY  INDUSTRY: 
A  STATISTICAL  STUDY 

EDWIN  C.  VOOBHIES* 


SUMMARY 


Poultry  and  eggs  are  produced  in  almost  all  parts  of  the  civilized 
world.  California  produces  approximately  4  per  cent  of  the  chicken 
eggs  and  less  than  3  per  cent  of  the  chickens  raised  in  the  United 
States.  During  the  past  few  years,  and  more  especially  during  the 
past  ten  years,  a  number  of  important  changes  have  taken  place  in  the 
poultry  industry.  These  changes  are  summarized  in  the  following 
discussion  under  (1)  eggs  and  (2)  poultry.  Since  California  produces 
only  a  small  part  of  the  nation 's  supply  of  both,  it  is  evident  that  this 
state  cannot  be  considered  entirely  separate  from  the  nation  as  a  whole. 

(1)  Eggs. — Eggs  are  the  primary  poultry  product  of  California. 
Since  egg  production  is  increasing  more  rapidly  in  both  the  nation  as 
a  whole  and  in  California  than  is  the  human  population,  the  purchas- 
ing power  of  eggs  has  shown  a  marked  decline.  This  decline  has  been 
more  rapid  in  California  than  in  the  country  at  large.  Until  the 
decade  1910-1920,  California  was  an  importer  of  eggs.  During  this 
period  egg  production  increased  so  rapidly  that  the  state  became  an 
exporter.  Indications  point  to  the  necessity  of  proceeding  on  this 
new  basis. 

Throughout  the  nation  the  production  of  eggs  increased  rapidly, 
largely  because  it  was  more  profitable  to  market  eggs  than  farm 
commodities  in  general. 

The  purchasing  power  for  California  eggs  may  continue  to  fall 
unless  the  product  be  of  such  a  quality  as  to  command  a  premium  on 
the  eastern  markets. 

California's  poultry  industry,  being  highly  specialized,  uses  large 
amounts  of  concentrated  feedstuffs.  The  poultryman  is  therefore 
interested  in  the  relationship  between  egg  prices  and  feed  prices. 
Although  feed  prices  have  been  low  as  compared  with  general  com- 
modity prices,  they  have  advanced  slightly  faster  than  egg  prices 
since  1910.  This  advance  has  been  offset  largely  by  the  increase  in  the 
egg  production  per  hen  in  this  state.    The  California  poultry  industry 

*  Assistant  Professor  of  Agricultural  Economics  and  Associate  Agricultural 
Economist  in  the  Experiment  Station. 


4  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

not  only  pays  the  freight  on  eggs  which  are  exported  but  in  many 
instances  pays  freight  on  feedstuffs  that  are  imported,  a  fact  which  is 
shown  by  the  importation  of  a  large  percentage  of  the  concentrated 
feedstuffs  used.    Inferior  eggs  cannot  pay  freight  both  ways. 

California's  principal  outside  market  has  been  New  York  City, 
where  a  demand  has  arisen  for  Pacific  Coast  white  eggs.  Washington 
and  Oregon  have  been  California's  main  Pacific  Coast  competitors,  and 
during  the  past  three  years  especially  have  been  increasing  their  offer- 
ings on  this  market  more  rapidly  than  has  California.  Other  outlets 
for  California  eggs  have  been  opened  up  in  various  eastern  seaboard 
cities  and  in  some  of  the  cities  of  the  Middle  West  and  South.  Cali- 
fornia eggs  should  aim  to  fill  the  premium  class,  as  ordinary  eggs  are 
plentiful  the  country  over,  especially  in  the  Middle  West ;  in  addition, 
the  long  haul  makes  it  advisable  to  ship  out  only  a  product  of  high 
value. 

Eggs  from  the  Pacific  Coast  have  been  placed  on  eastern  markets 
especially  during  the  fall  and  winter  months — the  period  of  relatively 
high  returns.  Prices  for  California  eggs  are  determined  largely  by 
conditions  outside  of  the  state;  the  more  fall  and  winter  eggs  pro- 
duced, therefore,  the  more  remunerative  are  the  returns  likely  to  be. 
It  is  not  probable  that  any  considerable  change  in  seasonal  production 
will  take  place  in  the  nation  as  a  whole. 

The  proportion  of  pullet  eggs  to  extra  eggs  has  been  increasing 
during  the  past  few  years.  This  is  due  to  a  more  careful  grading  of 
eggs  and  perhaps  to  faulty  feeding  which  often  forces  the  young  hen 
into  early  laying.  A  slight  downward  trend  in  the  ratio  of  the  prices 
of  pullet  eggs  to  extra  eggs  has  been  noticeable — a  trend  brought  about 
in  part  perhaps  by  the  larger  proportion  of  pullet  eggs  produced. 

Cold  storage  of  eggs  has  been  especially  beneficial  to  California 
producers  because  processing  of  eggs  in  this  state  is  facilitated  by  the 
concentration  of  the  industry.  Eggs  are  stored  in  the  spring,  during 
the  flush  season  of  production,  thus  tending  to  maintain  prices. 

(2)  Poultry  for  meat. — Poultry  for  meat  is  a  by-product  of  egg 
production.  Chicken  prices  in  the  country  as  a  whole  have  risen  since 
1910  more  rapidly  than  the  prices  of  other  commodities;  hence,  the 
purchasing  power  has  tended  to  advance  slightly.  This  movement  has 
been  decidedly  in  the  opposite  direction  for  California,  since  this 
state  specializes  in  the  egg-laying  breeds.  The  purchasing  powers  of 
broilers,  fryers,  and  Leghorn  hens  on  both  the  San  Francisco  and 
Los  Angeles  markets  have  declined  since  1910. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  5 

In  view  of  the  favorable  price  obtained  for  the  heavy  breeds  since 
the  war,  the  question  of  the  advisability  of  raising  the  meat  breeds 
in  this  state  has  been  raised.  Attention  is  called  to  the  seeming  swing 
back  to  the  meat  breeds  in  parts  of  the  Middle  West.  At  the  present 
time  the  meat  birds  of  this  country  are  being  produced  in  the  section 
of  the  nation  where  feed  is  abundant  and  where  express  is  paid  on  the 
finished  product  shipped  from  that  section.  The  principal  source  of 
income  even  in  the  Middle  West,  however,  is  from  eggs,  not  meat. 
Whether  California  could  compete  under  such  conditions  is,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  writer,  questionable. 

Foreign  demand. — Violent  disturbances  of  the  egg  trade  of  the 
world  were  brought  about  by  the  war.  On  account  of  the  increase  in 
production  in  this  country,  exports  of  shell  eggs  have  risen  rather 
rapidly.  On  the  other  hand,  the  imports  of  egg  products  such  as 
frozen  eggs,  etc.  (p.  122),  from  abroad  have  increased  during  the 
past  few  years  so  that  the  nation  is  just  about  self -sufficient  in  its 
egg  supply.  The  prospect  for  additional  foreign  markets  for  eggs  does 
not  look  particularly  favorable,  as  nearly  all  egg  surplus  nations  are 
endeavoring  to  increase  their  exports.  The  exports  and  imports  of 
poultry  are  of  minor  importance. 

The  present  outlook  does  not  justify  a  marked  increase  in  the  pro- 
duction of  eggs  and  poultry.  If  the  expansion  of  the  California 
poultry  industry  is  to  continue,  it  should  be  directed  toward  a  more 
efficient  production  of  the  highest  quality  eggs  possible.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  California  can  compete  in  producing  inferior  eggs,  if  these 
are  to  be  used  for  out-of-state  shipments. 

THE    GENERAL    SITUATION 

Importance  of  the  industry. — The  production  and  consumption  of 
the  products  of  an  industry  determine  its  importance.  Probably  more 
widely  engaged  in  than  any  other  agricultural  industry,  the  raising  of 
poultry  is  of  more  direct  concern  to  the  consumer  than  are  many  other 
farm  activities. 

According  to  the  census  of  1920,  poultry  was  raised  on  90.8 
per  cent  of  the  farms  of  the  United  States  and  poultry  was  reported 
from  practically  every  county  in  the  country.  In  addition,  there  are  a 
great  many  back-yard  flocks  not  reported.  These  must  be  considered 
along  with  the  census  figures.  Although  the  cash  returns  of  such  indi- 
vidual flocks  are  small,  the  aggregate  value  is  large.  There  are  few 
other  commodities  so  wideky  used  in  the  occidental  world  as  poultry 
meat  and  eggs. 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Fig.  1. — Poultry  in  the  United  States,  1920.  Over  70  per  cent  of  the  poultry 
are  in  the  Mississippi  Valley  where  approximately  50  per  cent  of  the  nation's 
people  make  their  homes.  The  northeastern  section  of  the  United  States  with  its 
large  industrial  population  is  the  great  deficiency  area  of  the  country  with  respect 
to  poultry  and  eggs.  The  number  of  poultry  in  the  western  states  is  relatively 
small  compared  with  the  remainder  of  the  country,  but  it  is  of  importance  because 
of  the  surplus  of  poultry  in  comparison  with  human  population.  Figure  used  by 
courtesy  of  the  U.  S.  D.  A. 


TABLE  1 


Chickens:  Number  on  Farms,  United  States,  1890,  1900,  1910,  1920-1925 

(Thousands — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


1925 

1924 

1923 

1922 

1921 

1920 

1910 

1900 

1890 

427,000 

43,400 
99,400 
129,800 
46,000 
79,800 
28,000 

470,300 

50,500 
107,400 
138,800 
48,700 
89,200 
35,700 

424,800 

45,200 
101,100 
121,800 
43,600 
78,500 
34,600 

408,600 

41,400 
95,200 
115,200 
41,700 
82,500 
32,600 

357,700 

34,000 
81,500 
108,000 
37,800 
70,400 
26,000 

359,537 

33,256 
84,516 
105,348 
36,408 
74,011 
25,999 

280,341 

31,289 
69,471 
85,192 
25,627 
53,671 
15,091 

233,566 

27,952 
58,104 
65,365 
22,294 
50,300 
9,551 

258,871 

Geographic  Divisions: 

28,110 

East  North  Central 

West  North  Central 

58,930 
73,772 
33,774 

57,110 

7,174 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1890,  1900,  1910,  1920.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Fourteenth 
Census,  5:  610.  (1922).  Years  1921-1926  from  estimates  of  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics, 
published  in  Monthly  Supplement  to  Crops  and  Markets  during  February  of  each  year.  Figures  for 
1890  and  1900  are  of  June  1;  for  1910  of  April  15;  for  1920-1925,  of  January  1.  Note:  The  1925  Farm  Census 
returns  are  complete  (November  1926)  for  the  following  divisions  as  of  Jan.  1,  1925— North  Atlantic 
States  42,966,993,  East  North  Central  89,652,590,  West  North  Central  123,076,892.  Based  on  partial 
census  returns,  the  author  makes  the  following  estimates  for  the  remaining  divisions — South  Atlantic 
41,600,000,  South  Central,  79,400,000,  Far  Western  33,700,000,  United  States  total  410,300,000. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  7 

On  the  basis  of  aggregate  value,  poultry  products  ranked  seventh 
among  farm  products  in  the  United  States  in  1924,  being  exceeded  by 
that  of  corn,  dairy  products,  hay  and  forage  crops,  cotton,  wheat,  and 
swine.  Their  value  was  practically  the  same  as  that  of  beef  cattle. 
The  Division  of  Crop  and  Livestock  Estimates  of  the  Bureau  of  Agri- 
cultural Economics  estimated  the  farm  value  of  poultry  raised  and 
eggs  produced  for  the  year  as  $968,000,000.  For  1925  it  reached  the 
sum  of  over  one  billion  dollars  ($1,117,000,000).* 

The  importance  of  poultry  in  California. — The  value  of  the 
chickens  raised  and  eggs  produced  in  California  in  1924,  according  to 
the  Bureau  of  the  Census,  was  $44,423,606.  f  This  was  exclusive  of 
other  poultry  products  which  would  have  added  considerably  to  the 
aggregate,  if  such  had  been  available. 

In  a  state  with  such  varied  production  as  California,  it  is  difficult 
to  make  comparisons  between  the  products  of  various  agricultural 
industries.  According  to  the  estimates  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics  and  the  California  State  Department  of  Agriculture  on 
the  value  of  crops  within  the  state  in  1924,  poultry  products  were 
exceeded  only  by  hay  and  forage,  dairy  products,  grapes  (including 
raisins).  The  farm  value  of  the  oranges  produced  was  only  slightly 
more  than  that  of  chicken  eggs  produced  and  chickens  raised. 

The  chicken  eggs  produced  in  California  accounted  for  over  two- 
thirds  the  aggregate  value  of  chicken  products,  while  in  the  country 
as  a  whole,  eggs  represented  57.4  per  cent  of  the  total  for  all  poultry 
products.  On  a  relative  basis,  eggs  are  of  far  more  importance  in  the 
poultry  industry  of  California  than  they  are  in  the  nation.  In  1919 
(Census)  California  produced  3.88  per  cent  of  all  the  eggs  produced 
in  the  United  States,  but  only  2.73  per  cent  of  the  chickens  raised. 
It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  the  value  of  eggs  produced  in 
California  in  1919  ($31,420,704)  accounted  for  4.6  per  cent  of  the 
total  for  chicken  eggs  produced  in  the  entire  nation  ($661,082,083) 
during  the  same  year.  Indications  from  the  preliminary  data  on  hand 
are  that  the  value  of  eggs  produced  and  of  chickens  raised  in  Califor- 
nia during  1924  will  total  considerably  over  the  1919  percentage  of  the 
total  aggregate  for  chicken  eggs  produced  and  chickens  raised  in  the 
United  States. 


*  Information  from  Koy  G.  Potts,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  U.  S.  D.  A. 
t  Final  figure  furnished  to  the  author  by  the  Bureau  of  the  Census. 


8  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

GEOGRAPHIC    DISTRIBUTION    OF   THE    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 

The  most  important  chicken,  egg,  and  meat  producing  territories 
of  the  United  States  can  be  divided,  according  to  their  geographical 
location  and  the  character  of  the  industry,  into  three  fairly  distinct 
sections. 

Mississippi  Valley. — The  first  section  comprises  principally  the 
states  lying  in  the  Mississippi  Valley,  including  Minnesota,  Michigan, 


Number  of  Laying  Hens  in  United  States  by  Geographic  Divisions 


MllUn 
160 


120 


80 


HO 


|      JANUA 
1      JANUA 

1 

RY    1920 
RY    I92S 

>$■ 

r,-..?r^HB 

VORTH 

ATLANTIC 

' 

:ast  /vort 

CENTRAL 

^ 

V 

/bST    /VORT 

:entral 

"I 

SOUTH 

CENTRAL 

SOUTH 

ATLANTI 

,1 

FAR 
WESTERN  1 

Million 
160 


80 


Fig.  2. — The  above  chart  shows  the  number  of  laying  hens  in  the  United  States 
by  geographical  distribution  in  1920  and  1925.  Numerically  the  increase  was 
greatest  in  the  Middle  Western  States.  Eelatively,  the  greatest  increase  was  in 
the  North  Atlantic  States,  followed  by  the  Far  Western  States.  California  is 
represented  in  the  Far  Western  classification  and  has  about  two-fifths  of  the 
laying  hens  in  this  grouping.    Data  from  table  1.     See  note  under  table  1. 

Wisconsin,  Iowa,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Nebraska, 
Kansas,  Oklahoma,  Texas  and  Tennessee.  According  to  the  estimates 
made  by  the  United  States  Department  o£  Agriculture,  the  entire 
Mississippi  Valley  area  contained  over  72  per  cent  (72.3)  of  the 
chickens  in  the  United  States  on  January  1,  1925,  while  the  human 
population  made  up  approximately  50  per  cent  of  the  total.*  The 
enormous  quantity  of  eggs  and  poultry  meat  from  farms  in  this  area, 
especially  on  those  of  the  corn  belt,  are  produced  on  grain  and  stock 
farms.    Up  to  the  present  time,  there  has  not  been  a  large  number  of 


Dept.  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Fourteenth  Census,  U.  S.,  2:31,  1922. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


TABLE   2 


Chickens:  Leading  States  in  Number  on  Farms  1910  and  1920  with  Partial 

Statistics  1925 

State 

Jan.  1,  1910 

State 

Jan.  1,  1920 

Jan.  1,  1925  * 

22,691,641 

20,563,850 

19,910,221 

16,850,099 

15,266,241 

13,216,024 

12,719,572 

11,895,903 

10,293,843 

10,232,498 

9,698,401 

9,142,719 

9,010,945 

8,014,938 

8,000,457 

7,341,469 

5,665,964 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 

27,746,510 
25,120,643 
24,883,985 
20,232,637 
18,062,744 
16,919,248 
16,754,293 
14,503,468 
13,212,619 
11,615,257 
11,495,057 
11,353,647 
11,137,259 
10,913,645 
10,477,598 
10,426,648 
10,414,600 

30,275,338 

25,738,132 
28,222,087 

4.  Ohio 

Ohio 

20,927,460 

Kansas 

21,584,965 

7.  Texas 

17,355,369 

17,306,490 

16,408,080 

10.  New  York 

Nebraska 

13,499,515 

13,052,650 

13,023,482 
13,023,482 

11,035,942 

12,784,512 

13,408,720 

*  Preliminary  announcement,  subject  to  correction. 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1910  and  1920,  arranged  by  author  from  data  in  Dept.  Commerce,  Bureau 
Census,  Fourteenth  Census,  U.  S.  5:  610,  1922.  Year  1925  from  preliminary  figures  furnished  author 
by  Bureau  Census.    Remaining  data  for  January  1,  1925,  is  being  compiled  by  Census  Bureau. 


TABLE  3 

Eggs:  Leading  States  in  Production  1909,  1919,  with  Partial  Statistics  1924 


State 

1909 

State 

1919 

1924* 

110,922,159 
108,662,882 
100,284,261 
99,118,224 
81,087,689 
80,028,638 
77,377,977 
73,683,489 
71,191,449 
59,556,356 
53,323,702 
50,269,446 
46,460,624 
45,356,592 
43,781,616 
41,244,285 
40,735,238 

120,697,319 

117,203,569 

105,757,907 

102,377,143 

83,101,293 

76,136,616 

75,998,172 

70,264,074 

64,123,885 

62,175,172 

60,249,543 

133,776,386 

3.  Ohio 

113,020,993 

4.   Ohio 

112,893,410 

86,974,603 

93,144,604 

7.  Texas 

102,047,724 

8.  Texas 

9.  New  York 

99,907,325 

10.  New  York 

87,167,262 

11.   Minnesota 

76,321,570 

17.  California 

*  Preliminary  announcement,  subject  to  correction. 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1909  and  1919  arranged  by  author  from  data  in  Dept.  Commerce,  Bureau 
Census,  Fourteenth  Census,  U.  S.  5:  679,  1922.  Year  1924  from  preliminary  figures  furnished  author 
by  Bureau  Census.    Remaining  data  for  1924  being  compiled  by  Bureau  Census. 


10  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

specialized  chicken  farms,  although  the  district  produces  eggs  and 
chicken  meat  far  in  excess  of  the  requirements  of  the  area,  so  that  a 
considerable  proportion  of  the  product  must  find  markets  elsewhere. 
During  the  past  five  years  information  received  from  these  states  indi- 
cates a  development  of  the  commercial  flocks.*  This  apparently  is 
true  in  those  sections  which  have  become  largely  industralized. 

Northeastern  States. — The  second  section  includes  Maryland,  Dela- 
ware, New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  the  New  England 
states.  Approximately  30  per  cent  of  the  population  of  the  United 
States  in  1920  was  in  this  area,  while  only  10.5  per  cent  of  the  chicken 
population  was  found  there.  Although  many  large  and  specialized 
poultry  farms  have  been  developed  in  this  area,  the  supply  of  poultry 
products  from  it  is  wholly  inadequate  to  meet  the  demand.  It  is  this 
section  of  the  country  which  has  attracted  the  attention  of  the  pro- 
ducers of  the  Pacific  Coast  during  the  past  few  years,  the  major  por- 
tion of  the  interstate  egg  shipments  from  the  Pacific  Coast,  therefore, 
has  been  unloaded  in  this  area. 

Pacific  Coast  States. — The  third  section  comprises  the  Pacific  Coast 
states  of  Washington,  Oregon,  and  California.  Commercial  poultry 
farming  has  been  developing  rapidly  in  this  section,  especially  since 
1910,  and  considerable  quantities  of  eggs  are  shipped  annually  to 
other  sections  of  the  United  States  and  to  foreign  countries ;  the  prin- 
cipal shipments  being  made  to  Atlantic  Coast  markets,  although  of 
late  there  have  been  shipments  to  cities  in  the  Middle  West  and  South. 
Washington  and  Oregon  are  the  main  western  competitors  of  Cali- 
fornia in  this  trade.  Not  only  are  eggs  from  these  states  found  in 
quantity  on  California  markets,  but  with  California,  these  two  states 
furnish  the  bulk  of  the  " Pacific  Coast  White  Eggs"  on  the  markets 
of  the  eastern  seaboard. 

Rocky  Mountain  and  Southern  States. — In  addition  to  the  three 
principal  areas  of  chicken  and  egg  production  mentioned  above,  the 
southeastern  states  should  be  mentioned  on  account  of  the  aggregate 
chicken  population,  which  is  comparatively  high  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  number  of  chickens  per  farm  is  low.  The  production  in 
several  of  these  states  does  not  meet  the  demand  for  poultry  products. 

The  Rocky  Mountain  and  southwestern  states  confine  the  chicken 
industry  largely  to  flocks  of  relatively  limited  size.  The  states  of 
Idaho  and  Utah  are  of  interest  to  the  California  producer,  as  eggs 
from  these  two  states  are  to  be  found  not  only  on  the  California 


*  Source — Letters  from  professors  of  poultry  husbandry  in  the  state  colleges 
of  agriculture  of  the  middle  western  states. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


11 


markets  but,  in  addition,  have  recently  been  shipped  to  the  markets 
on  the  eastern  seaboard.  Some  of  the  remaining  states  in  this  area 
furnish  at  times  a  market  for  California  eggs — Arizona,  Nevada,  New 
Mexico,  Montana,  Colorado.     (See  table  34,  page  68.) 


TABLE  4 

Chickens:     States  Leading  in  Numbers  Baised* 

Statistics  1924 


1909,   1919,   with  Partial 


State 

1909 

State 

1919 

1924f 

31,058,772 
30,413,289 
28,970,482 
23,860,411 
23,845,961 
22,776,881 
22,098,966 
17,572,773 
16,348,429 
15,865,254 
15,336,955 
15,182,753 
14,724,281 
13,765,827 
13,706,397 
13,393,599 
12,529,844 
11,412,001 
11,382,815 
10,862,870 
10,431,235 
9,673,838 
8,062,383 
7,849,231 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 

31,076,091 
29,893,565 
29,363,102 
25,829,724 
22,618,296 
22,502,600 
22,458,227 
16,817,261 
15,796,750 
15,663,745 
15,554,496 
15,506,845 
15,062,386 
14,588,012 
14,227,483 
14,047,006 
12,929,044 
12,441,555 

38,184,909 

32,203,811 

4.  Texas 

Texas 

25,256,884 

6.  Ohio 

29,064,067 

Ohio 

8.  Kentucky 

19,670,036 

20,310,433 

Kentucky 

13.  Nebraska 

20,352,255 

15.   Georgia 

16.  New  York 

14,382,861 

15,275,548 

19.  Alabama 

21.  Wisconsin 

22.  Arkansas 

23.  South  Carolina 

24.  California 

*  Chickens  raised  to  marketable  age,  does  not  include  baby  chicks. 

t  Preliminary  announcement,  subject  to  correction. 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1909  and  1919  arranged  by  author  from  data  in  Dept.  Commerce,  Bureau 
Census,  Fourteenth  Census,  U.  S.  5:  682,  1922.  Year  1924  from  preliminary  figures  furnished  author 
by  Bureau  Census.    Remaining  data  for  1924  being  compiled  by  Bureau  Census. 

For  the  census  and  for  purposes  of  estimation,  the  country  is  often 
divided  into  the  North  Atlantic,  East  North  Central,  West  North 
Central,  South  Atlantic,  South  Central,  and  Far  Western  states. 
Yearly  estimates  are  now  made  for  each  of  these  regions  on  the 
chickens  on  hand  January  1,  together  with  the  number  and  value  of 
chickens  and  chicken  eggs  produced.     (Table  1,  page  6.) 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  POULTRY  INDUSTRY 

United  States. — The  chicken  industry  of  the  United  States  has 
grown  markedly  since  the  first  census  of  the  poultry  industry  was 
taken  in  1880.     The  number  of  chickens  increased  far  more  rapidly 


Comparison  of  Increase  in  Human  Population,  Chickens  Kaised,  and  Eggs 
Produced  in  the  United  States,  1880-1925 
Millions 

zsooo 
toooo 


/SOOO 


/o  000 


5  OOO 
4  50O 
4  OOO 
3  500 
*5  OOO 
2  SOO 

2  OOO 
I  500 

/  OOO 


SOO 
450 
400 
350 
300 
2  SO 


ZOO 


iSO 


too 


SO 


^ 

+ 

— *»^' 

...j. 

,/" 

Eggs    Proi 

iu<ZGd' 

/ 

r 

Chickens 

Raised* 

§ 

y 

*      _^ 

S 

^-* 

^ 

/ 

^*^^ 

Lft?^»a ■          - 

V           _^n— 

// 

// 

^■Chickens 

on   Forms 

Popu/a-f/\ 

■>n' 

Fig.  3. — Since  1880  population  has  slightly  more  than  doubled,  while  poultry  and 
egg  production  is  over  four  times  that  of  1880,    Data  from  table  5,  p.  13. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


13 


than  population  from  1880  to  1890;  while  during  the  next  decade, 
1890-1900,  an  actual  decrease  was  registered.  From  1900  to  1920,  and 
especially  from  1910-1920,  the  number  increased  more  rapidly  than 
did  the  population.  From  January  1,  1920,  to  January  1,  1925,  esti- 
mates* show  an  increase  of  19  per  cent  (18.75)  in  the  chicken  popula- 
tion of  the  entire  country,  while  the  human  population  shows  an 
increase  of  only  9  per  cent  (9.15)  between  January  1,  1920,  and 
July  1,  1925.    Later  estimates  based  on  partial  census  returns  indicate 

TABLE  5 

Human  Population,  Chickens,  and  Chicken  Products,  United  States  1880, 

1890,  1900,  1910,  1920,  1925.     Actual  and  Eelative  Statistics  of 

Human  Population,  Chickens  on  Farms,  Chickens 

Eaised,  and  Eggs  Produced 


*Eggs 
produced 

*Chickens 
raised 

Chickens 
on  farms 

Population 
United 

States 

Relative  numbers  (1880=100) 

Year 

Eggs 
pro- 
duced 

Chick- 
ens 
raised 

Chick- 
ens on 
farms 

Popu- 
lation 
United 

States 

1880  (June  1) 

1890  (June  1) 

Thousands 
5,482,931 
9,836,675 
15,523,949 
18,899,753 
19,848,539 
23,619,312 

Thousands 
125,507 
285,609 
250,624 
460,611 
437,302 
678,300 

Thousands 
102,272 
258,871 
233,566 
280,341 
359,537 
427,000 

Thousands 
50,156 
62,948 
75,995 
91,972 
105,711 
112,786 

Per  cent 
100.00 
179.41 
283.13 
344.70 
362.01 
430.78 

Per  cent 
100.00 
227.56 
199.69 
367.00 
377.11 
540.45 

Per  cent 
100.00 
253.12 
228.38 
274.11 
351.55 
417.50 

Per  cent 
100.00 
125.50 

1900  (June  1) 

1910  (Apr.  15) 

1920  (Jan.  1) 

151.52 
183.37 
210.76 

1925  (Jan.  1) 

224.87 

1926. 


Source:    Pierce,  Howard  C.    The  Poultry  and  Egg  Industry  of  Europe,  U.  S.  D.  A.  Bull.  1385:  2. 
*  Production  figures  are  for  the  preceding  year. 


that  the  percentage  increase  in  chicken  population  1920-1925  was 
approximately  15  per  cent.  See  table  1,  p.  6.  The  chicken  popu- 
lation during  the  five  years,  1920-1925,  has  therefore  increased  far 
more  than  the  human  population.  The  estimate  for  the  number  of 
hens  and  pullets  of  laying  age  on  farms  for  January  1,  1926,  was 
about  4.7  per  cent  greater  than  for  January  1,  1925,  according  to 
reports  received  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  from 
about  45,000  farmers  representing  all  parts  of  the  United  States,  t 

The  rate  of  increase  in  poultry  has  been  greater  since  1880  than 
for  any  other  kind  of  livestock,  being  most  nearly  approached  by 
dairy  cattle.  It  might  be  added  that  numbers  alone  do  not  depict  the 
poultry  industry  today  as  compared  with  a  decade   or  even  four 


*  Crops  and  Markets,  Supplement  3:82,  March,  1926. 
t  Crops  and  Markets,  Supplement  3:82,  March,  1926. 


14 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


decades  ago.  It  is  estimated  that  the  hen  of  today  in  certain  sections 
of  the  country  is  more  efficient  than  she  was  in  1900.  This  statement 
would  doubtless  also  hold  for  all  classes  of  livestock. 

The  growth  in  the  chicken  population  of  the  far  western  states 
was  relatively  greater  from  1890  to  1920  than  that  of  the  other  geo- 
graphical divisions  of  the  country.  From  1920  to  1925  the  greatest 
relative  growth  in  chicken  population  was  in  the  North  Atlantic 
States,  followed  by  the  Far  Western  States.     The  greatest  numerical 


Fig.  4. — The  average  egg  production  per  hen  in  1919  was  lowest  in  the 
Southern  States.  Production  varied  from  38.5  eggs  in  Georgia  to  85.3  per  hen  in 
Maine.  Excluding  chickens  which  were  not  layers,  the  average  production  per 
layer  was  about  77  eggs.  It  is  probable  that  the  number  of  eggs  reported  to  the 
census  enumerator  in  the  winter  of  1920  as  produced  by  the  farm  flock  in  1919 
is  less  than  the  actual  production  because  of  a  lack  of  records,  and  of  a  tendency 
on  the  part  of  some  to  judge  by  the  number  of  eggs  being  laid  at  the  time  of 
the  year  the  census  was  taken,  when  production  was  at  the  low  point  of  the  year. 
It  will  be  noted  that  California  is  among  the  high  states.  The  census  of  1925  indi- 
cates that  the  average  for  California  is  approximately  92  eggs  per  hen.  This 
latter  figure  has  been  computed  by  dividing  the  1924  production  by  the  number  of 
chickens  on  hand,  January  1,  1925.  No  correction  is  made  for  males.  Data  from 
table  115,  p.  166.    Photo  from  U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1924,  p.  402. 

growth  was  in  the  Middle  West  (fig.  2).  From  January  1,  1925,  to 
January  1,  1926,  estimates  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 
indicate  an  increase  of  14  per  cent  in  hens  and  pullets  in  the  western 
states,  about  6  per  cent  in  the  north  central  states,  and  4  per  cent  in 
the  south  central  states,  while  the  south  Atlantic  and  the  north 
Atlantic  states  show  a  decrease  of  1  per  cent  and  2  per  cent, 
respectively. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  15 

Statistics  of  egg  production  indicate  a  substantial  increase  for  the 
country  during  each  decade  for  which  figures  are  available.  From 
1880  to  1890  the  increase  was  80  per  cent;  1890  to  1900,  50  per  cent; 
1900  to  1910,  25  per  cent ;  and  5  per  cent  from  1910  to  1920.  Egg 
production  per  capita  also  increased  from  1880  to  1910  but  decreased 
slightly  between  1910  and  1920.  In  1880  the  per  capita  production 
in  dozens  was  9.00;  1890,  13.09;  1900,  16.96;  1910,  17.30;  and  in  1920, 
15.65.*  If  estimates  of  both  egg  production  (Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics)  and  population  (Bureau  of  the  Census)  were  used  for 
1925  the  per  capita  production  would  be  between  17  and  18  dozen. 

California. — The  increase  in  the  number  of  chickens  in  California 
was  especially  marked  during  the  decades  1880  to  1890  and  1910  to 
1920,  the  growth  during  the  latter  decade  being  the  greatest  since 
census  enumerations  have  been  taken.  During  these  two  decades,  the 
increase  was  far  greater  than  the  increase  in  human  population.  It 
was  during  1910  to  1920  that  the  state  began  to  ship  eggs  in  large 
quantities  to  the  eastern  seaboard,  thus  becoming  an  exporter  rather 
than  an  importer.  According  to  the  1925  farm  census  the  increase  in 
the  number  of  chickens  from  1920  to  1925,  was  22.6  per  cent  or 
approximately  the  same  as  that  of  the  human  population  for  this 
period.  The  rate  in  the  increase  of  chickens  has  been  greater  than 
for  an}'  other  class  of  livestock,  being  most  nearly  approached  by  dairy 
cattle. 

The  1925  farm  census  showed  that  one-fourth  of  all  the  chickens 
in  the  state  were  in  Sonoma  County,  popularly  referred  to  as  the 
Petaluma  district.  The  largest  percentage  increases  during  the  period 
1920  to  1925  have  been  in  certain  coast  counties  and  in  a  number  of 
interior  counties — Eiverside,  San  Bernardino,  Sacramento.  (See 
table  108,  p.  160.)  Private  estimates  of  the  number  of  chickens  on 
hand  in  California  on  January  1,  1925,  range  from  15,000,000  to 
18,000,000.  The  lower  estimate  is  based  upon  a  carefully  revised  mail- 
ing list  of  50,000  poultrymen  kept  by  a  large  feed  concern  in  Cali- 
fornia. The  list  contains  no  names  of  poultrymen  having  less  than 
150  hens.  The  1925  Farm  Census  did  not  enumerate  the  chickens 
within  certain  city  limits  where  many  flocks  in  this  state  are  found. 

The  production  of  eggs  in  California  shows  even  a  greater  growth 
than  the  number  of  chickens  since  1880  (table  6,  p.  17).  The  produc- 
tion of  eggs  per  hen  has  increased.  In  1910  the  production  per  hen 
was  87  eggs,  although  in  1920  the  average  production  had  dropped  to 
74  eggs.     This  drop  might  have  been  expected  owing  to  the  marked 


^Yearbook  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  1924,  p.  388. 


16 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT   STATION 


increase  in  the  number  of  poultry.  In  very  few  of  the  animal  indus- 
tries is  a  rapid  expansion  accompanied  by  the  exercise  of  the  greatest 
care  in  breeding.    In  1925  the  average  production  was  92  eggs  per  hen. 


Chickens  in  California,  1925 


.••• 

«*{« 


1 


Fig.  5. — There  is  a  concentration  of  chickens  in  Sonoma,  Alameda,  Santa  Cruz, 
Los  Angeles  and  San  Diego  counties.  The  beginnings  of  a  considerable  concentra- 
tion in  several  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  valley  sections  and  in  Eiverside  and 
San  Bernardino  counties  can  be  discerned.    One  dot  equals  10,000  chickens. 

These  figures  are  only  approximate — the  1925  figure  being  obtained 
by  dividing  the  number  of  eggs  produced  during  1924  by  the  number 
of  hens  on  hand  January  1,  1925  (table  6,  p.  17).  While  these 
statistics  are  satisfactory  for  purposes  of  comparison  the  writer  esti- 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


17 


mates  that  the  number  of  eggs  produced  per  layer  in  1924  was  between 
120  and  132.  This  estimate  is  based  upon  the  conservative  statements 
of  poultrymen  in  various  sections  of  the  state. 

The  production  of  eggs  per  capita  in  California  increased  from 
approximately  6.7  dozens  in  1880  to  16.5  dozens  in  1900.  In  1920  it 
amounted  to  18.7  dozens,  while  in  1925  it  was  between  22  and  23 
dozens,  or  5  or  6  dozen  more  per  capita  than  the  average  for  the 
United  States. 

TABLE  6 

Actual  and  Kelative  Statistics  of  Chickens,  Livestock  and  Human 
Population,  California,  1880-1925 


(Thousands- 

i.e.,  000  omitted) 

Year 

Dozen 
Eggs 
pro- 
duced 

Chickens 
raised 

Chickens 

on 

farms 

All 
cattle 

Dairy 
cattle 

Swine 

Sheep 

Human 
popula- 
tion 

1880  (June  1) 

1890  (June  1) 

5,771 
13,679 
24,444 
40,735 
64,124 
97,907 

1,426 
3,504 
3,947 
5,666 
10,427 
12,785 

815 
1,608 
1,445 
2,077 
2,008 
1,918 

210 
317 
307 
382 
502 
557 

868 
594 
598 
767 
909 
431 

5,727 
3,373 
2,563 
2,417 
2,400 
3,045 

865 

1,213 

1900  (June  1) 

1,485 

1910  (Apr.  15) 

1920  (Jan.  1) 

7,849 
12,929 
14,383 

2,378 
3,426 

1925  (Jan.  1) 

4,180 

Relative  numbers  (1880 

=  100) 

1880      

100 
237 
424 
706 
1,111 
1,696 

100 

246 
277 
397 
731 
897 

100 
197 
177 
255 
246 
235 

100 
151 
146 

182 
239 
265 

100 
68 
69 
88 

105 
50 

100 
59 
45 
42 
42 
53 

100 

1890 

140 

1900  

172 

1910      

275 

1920               

396 

1925 

483 

Sources  of  data:  Eggs  produced  and  chickens  raised — data  for  years  previous  to  those  listed,  e.g., 
1879,  1889,  etc.,  1879-1919,  Bureau  of  Census,  14th  Census  5,  pp.  682,  685.  1925,  Bureau  of  Census,  U.  S. 
Census  of  Agriculture,  1925,  Cal.  p.  7.  Chickens  on  Farms,  1880, 10th  Census,3,  p.  250;  1890-1920, 14th  Cen- 
sus 5,  p.  610;  1925,  U.  S.  Census  Agriculture,  1925,  Cal.  p.  7.  All  Cattle,  1880-1920,  14th  Census  5,  p.  572; 
1925,  U.  S.  Census  Agriculture,  1925,  Cal.  p.  7.  Note  that  all  cattle  includes  Dairy  Cows  and  Heifers  over 
2  years.  Figures  for  censuses  prior  to  1900  were  nominally  exclusive  of  calves.  Dairy  Cattle,  1880- 
1920,  14th  Census  5,  p.  573;  1925,  U.  S.  Census  Agriculture,  1925,  Cal.  p.  7.  Swine,  1880-1920,  14th  Census 
5,  p.  598;  1925,  U.  S.  Census  Agriculture,  1925,  Cal.  p.  7.  Sheep,  1880-1920,  14th  Census  5,  p.  586;  1925, 
U.  S.  Census  Agriculture  1925,  Cal.  p.  7.  Human  Population,  1880-1920,  14th  Census  1,  p.  95;  1925,  Esti- 
mate furnished  author  by  Bureau  of  Census.    Relative  numbers  computed  by  author. 


A  comparison  of  egg  production  per  hen  in  California  and  in  other 
states  in  1920  is  made  in  figure  4,  p.  14.  California  reported  not  only 
a  large  number  of  poultry  of  all  descriptions  per  farm,  but  a  relatively 
larger  number  of  chickens  than  most  other  states.  Since  California  is 
a  state  of  specialized  agriculture,  it  will  be  found  that  in  comparing 
the  number  of  chickens  per  farm  on  only  those  farms  reporting 
chickens,  California  stands  second  to  Iowa.  Farms  in  California 
reporting  chickens  showed  113  chickens  per  farm  in  comparison  with 


18 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


COMPAEISON  OF  INCREASE  IN  HUMAN  POPULATION,  CHICKENS  ON  FARMS  AND  EGGS 

Produced,  California,  1880-1925 
7~hoosonds 


/OOOOOO 


50  000 
45 OOO 
4OO0O 
35  OOO 
30  OOO 


^5  OOO 


ZO  OOO 


15  OOO 


/O  OOO 


5  OOO 
4sSOO 
4- OOO 

6  500 
O  OOO 

Z.500 
ZOOO 

/SOO 


/OOO 


500 


Eggs 

pr-oducGct  - 

\  y 

/ 

\»' 

y 

s 

S 

S 

y 

r 

/ 

/ 

/ 

S 

A 

.-" 

/ 

Chickt 

?ns    on    Far 

y 

++* 

Y 

6 

/ 

/ 

/ 

t 

^f^oput 

a-f-/or? 

Fig.  6. — Since  1880  California's  human  population  has  increased  slightly  under 
five  times  (1926 — 5  times),  while  the  chickens  on  farms  have  increased  almost  nine 
times  and  the  eggs  produced  have  increased  almost  seventeen  times.  Data  from 
table  6,  p.  17.     (Eggs  in  dozens.) 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  19 

62  for  the  country  as  a  whole.*  Although  a  production  of  only  74  eggs 
per  chicken  was  reported  for  1920,  this  was  high  in  comparison  with 
the  production  of  other  states,  California  being  exceeded  only  by  the 
four  New  England  States  of  Maine,  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire, 
and  Vermont — all  with  small  chicken  populations.  California  out- 
ranked all  other  states  in  the  number  of  eggs  laid  per  farm  during 
1919  on  account  of  both  the  large  number  of  chickens  per  farm  and  the 
high  egg  production  per  hen.  Partial  returns  from  the  1925  Farm 
Census  indicate  that  at  present  California  is  second  only  to  Washing- 
ton in  the  number  of  eggs  per  hen.  (Table  106,  p.  157.)  Of  great  inter- 
est in  this  connection  is  the  inquiry  which  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  is  conducting  annually  on  records  of  egg  produc- 
tion in  all  parts  of  the  United  States  (table  115,  p.  166).  Returns  for 
California  for  1925  in  this  preliminary  study  indicate  that  of  the 
22,000  farms  in  the  country  reporting,  those  in  California  had  a  pro- 
duction of  197  eggs  per  hen — a  record  closely  approached  by  Washing- 
ton and  New  Hampshire,  each  with  188  eggs  per  hen.  These  figures  are 
over  twice  as  large  as  those  reported  by  calculations  based  upon  the 
census.  It  should  be  emphasized  that  the  returns  are  from  only  a  few 
farms  and  the  number  of  eggs  per  hen  is  undoubtedly  too  high.  While 
the  number  of  farms  reporting  for  California  in  this  inquiry  evidently 
is  small  (22,000  for  the  entire  country),  the  average  percentage  pro- 
duction per  month  in  the  different  states  should  be  of  interest,  and 
with  additional  information,  this  work  should  prove  of  great  value. 
The  Western  States  enjoy  a  decided  advantage  over  the  United  States 
as  a  whole  in  that  a  greater  percentage  of  eggs  is  laid  during  the 
months  from  August  to  February,  inclusive,  than  in  the  United  States 
as  a  whole.  This  statement  is  also  true  for  California  in  this  inquiry, 
except  during  January. 

Trend  toward  egg  breeds  in  the  middle  west.\ — During  the  past 
decade  there  has  been  a  trend  toward  the  strictly  egg-laying  breeds, 
notably  the  White  Leghorn,  and  away  from  the  heavier  dual  purpose 
breeds  in  those  sections  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  in  which  commercial 
or  semi-commercial  flocks  of  five  hundred  or  more  birds  have  been 
developed.  In  some  sections  a  scarcity  of  good  stock  has  hastened  the 
trend  toward  the  egg  breeds.  At  the  present  time  there  seems  to  be 
on  the  farms  in  many  sections  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  a  tendency  to 
swing  back  toward  the   heavier  breeds,   a   change  which   has  been 


*  Computations  by  author  based  on  Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census, 
Fourteenth  Census,  U.  S.  5:681,  1922. 

t  Information  obtained  by  author  from  professors  of  poultry  husbandry  in 
Middle  Western  States. 


20 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


brought  about  by  the  comparatively  low  prices  offered  for  Leghorn 
hens  and  broilers. 

The  American  breeds  are  probably  still  preferred  for  small  farm- 
flocks  ;  and  most  brown  eggs  will  continue  to  be  the  small  farm-flock 
product,  while  most  white  eggs  will  come  from  the  hennery.  For  this 
reason  many  believe  the  white  eggs  found  in  our  eastern  markets  are 
usually  superior  to  the  browns.  If  this  be  true,  the  preference  for 
white  eggs  should  gradually  increase  and  the  average  price  for  white 
eggs  should  continue  to  rise. 

TABLE  7 

Poultry:  Average  Number  of  Principal  Kinds  per  Farm  by  Geographic 
Divisions,  United  States,  1910,  1920 


Average  number  per  farm  reporting 

Division 

All  fowls 

Chickens 

Turkeys 

Ducks 

Geese 

1920 

1910 

1920 

1910 

1920 

1910 

1920 

1910 

1920 

1910 

64 
46 
73 
85 
106 
37 
38 
47 
50 
88 

53 
47 
61 
69 
88 
29 
30 
39 
45 
69 

62 
45 
70 
83 
103 
35 
36 
45 
48 
86 

50 
46 
57 
66 
85 
26 
27 
36 
43 
65 

5 
6 
5 
5 
6 
5 
4 
6 
6 
9 

4 
4 
4 
4 
5 
4 
4 
5 
5 
8 

6 
10 
8 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
5 
9 

6 
7 
8 
5 
5 
6 
6 
6 
5 
8 

6 
4 
4 
5 
5 
7 
7 
7 
4 
4 

7 

6 

4 

5 

West  North  Central 

5 

8 

9 

9 

5 

5 

Source:    Dept.  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Fourteenth  Census  U.  S.  5: 


5,  1922. 


Poultry  other  than  chickens. — Compared  with  chickens,  turkeys, 
ducks,  and  geese  are  relatively  unimportant  in  the  United  States. 
There  was  a  decline  in  numbers  in  all  three  of  these  classes  of  poultry 
in  the  United  States  and  in  California  from  1890  to  1920. 

The  average  number  per  farm  of  the  principal  kinds  of  fowls  and 
the  per  cent  distribution  varies  considerably  for  different  sections  of 
the  country. 


PRICES  AND  PURCHASING  POWER  OF  EGGS 

Egg  prices  and  general  commodity  prices,  United  States. — High 
prices  for  eggs  do  not  necessarily  mean  prosperity,  nor  low  prices 
unprofitableness  for  the  egg  producer.  If  the  prices  received  for  eggs 
are  high  compared  to  the  things  the  egg  producer  must  buy,  the 
poultryman  is  prosperous;  if  they  are  low  compared  with  the  things 
he  must  buy,  he  is  not  prosperous.     Consequently,  a  comparison  of 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


21 


the  money  prices  of  eggs  and  poultry  and  of  the  money  prices  of 
other  commodities  is  of  interest  and  value. 

Figure  7  shows  comparisons  between  the  relative  farm  prices 
received  in  the  United  States  for  eggs  and  for  all  commodities, 
together  with  the  "purchasing  power"  of  eggs.  This  comparison  is 
termed  "purchasing  power." 


TABLE  8 

Poultry  :  Per  cent  Distribution  of  Different  Kinds  by  Geographic  Divisions, 

United  States,  1920 


Division 

All 
fowls 

Chickens 

Turkeys 

Ducks 

Geese 

Guinea 
fowls 

Pigeons 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

1.6 

7.69 
23.22 
29.08 
10.32 

9.61 
11.28 

2.65 

4.56 

1.61 

7.64 

23.51 

29.30 

10.13 

9.48 

11.10 

2.65 

4.58 

.59 

4.22 

11.78 

23.70 

15.16 

11.82 

21.52 

4.77 

6.44 

2.37 

13.88 

21.11 

28.95 

10.19 

10.18 

8.00 

1.96 

3.36 

.64 
3.44 
18.44 
27.17 
13.36 
17.20 
16.77 
1.60 
1.38 

.61 
10.49 
11.93 
12.74 
27.03 
17.44 
18.37 
.73 
.65 

1.88 

20.18 

12.97 

West  North  Central 

20.39 

12.64 

5.88 

12.37 

4.31 

9.38 

Source:    Dept.  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Fourteenth  Census,  U.  S.  5: 


1922. 


TABLE  9 

Poultry:  Number  of  Turkeys,  Ducks  and  Geese,  United  States  and 
California,  1S90,  1900,  1910,  and  1920 


United  States 

California 

Year 

Turkeys 

Ducks 

Geese 

Turkeys 

Ducks 

Geese 

1890    

10,754,060 
6,594,695 
3,688,708 
3,627,028 

66% 

7,544,080 
4,785,850 
2,906,525 
2,817,624 

63% 

8,440,175 
5,676,788 
4,431,980 
3,939,203 

53% 

287,799 
158,356 
116,602 
174,708 

40% 

157,514 
62,293 
40,061 
64,792 

58% 

37,659 

1900       

28,419 

1910 

14,195 

1920 

14,912 

60% 

Source  of  data:    Dept.  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Fourteenth  Census,  U.  S.  5:  611.     1922. 

The  index  of  wholesale  prices  compiled  by  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  is  used  in  converting  prices  of  eggs  to 
purchasing  power.  This  index  is  now  based  upon  the  prices  of  404 
commodities.  The  purchasing  power  of  eggs,  therefore,  indicates  the 
value  of  eggs  in  exchange  for  all  commodities,  making  up  the  com- 
modity index  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  at 
wholesale  prices  compared  with  pre-war  exchange  values. 


22 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Eelative  Farm  Prices  op  Eggs  Compared  with  "All  Commodity  Index,' ' 
United  States,  1910-1925 

Ind*X 

1910-14. 

=  lOO 

Z30 
ZZO 
Z/O 
ZOO 
190 

mo 

/70 

160 

150 
f40 
130 
IZO 
//O 
/OO 

90 

eo 


Pric 
All 

e  Ti 
Comr 

nodi 

Hes- 

ft 
It 

// 

// 

"/ 

t 

/  t 

1 

1 

/ 

/      S 
f       i 

t 

I 

1 
1 

1 
1 
1 

1  / 
/  / 

i 

\. — - 

f    / 

/  / 

K 

\ 
\ 

/ 

/ 
/ 

; 

\ 

\ 

/ 

1 

t+s- 

-Prt 

re  1 

hc/s> 

'  '£ 

99S 

// 

V 

•»#' 

>s 

I' 

• 

V 

< 

\ 

y 

/ 

\ 

-V 

^>^ 

Pur-t. 
E99, 

:has 

s    (L 

ha 

>.s.) 

Qowe 

^-3 

s 

c 

Sect, 
chat 

//ar- 
uhg 

\ 

The 
Po^ 

si — 

Eqqs 

__ 

^ 

f — r  - 

T~ 

§ 


Fig.  7. — From  1910  to  1915  the  price  indices  for  eggs  and  all  commodities  were 
approximately  the  same.  In  1916  the  "All  Commodity  Index"  began  to  advance 
more  rapidly  than  the  "Egg  Price  Index."  The  "All  Commodity  Index" 
remained  above  the  ' '  Egg  Index ' '  until  1921,  when  all  commodities  declined  to  a 
lower  point  than  eggs.  In  1922,  however,  eggs  fell  far  below  all  commodities. 
This  figure  applies  to  the  United  States  as  a  whole  and  not  to  California.*  For 
California  see  figures  9  and  12.    Data  from  table  10,  p.  23. 

The  purchasing  power  is  often  calculated  by  a  comparison  with 
non-agricultural  commodities  on  the  assumption  that  farmers  exchange 
their  products  more  generally  for  non-agricultural  commodities  than 
for  ' '  all  commodities, ' '  as  used  in  this  publication.  The  poultryman, 
however,  in  California  is  a  purchaser  of  agricultural  as  well  as  non- 
agricultural  products.     Owing  to  the  intense  specialization  in  the 

*  Equation  for  the  line  of  trend  is  y  =  96.1  —  .24  x,  origin  January  1,  1918. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


23 


poultry  districts  of  the  state,  the  specialized  poultryman  is  perhaps 
more  interested  in  the  prices  of  agricultural  commodities,  such  as  feed, 
than  he  is  in  the  prices  of  non-agricultural  commodities.  Standards 
of  living  are  constantly  changing.  Expenditures  are  different  today 
than  they  were  five,  ten  or  fifteen  years  ago.  Too  much  stress  should 
not  be  placed  upon  purchasing  power  as  the  "All  Commodity  Index" 


TABLE  10 

Eggs:  Eelative  Wholesale  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Eggs, 
United  States,  1910-1925 


Year 

Actual  price 
(cents  per  dozen) 

Relative  price 

All  Commodity 
Index 

Purchasing 
power 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

1910 

22.6 
19.4 
21.9 
21.5 
22.6 
21.9 
24.9 
34.2 
40.0 
44.3 
47.7 
33.3 
28.6 
30.1 
30.3 
33.5 

105 
90 
102 
100 
105 
102 
116 
159 
186 
206 
222 
155 
133 
140 
141 
156 

102.7 
94.7 
100.9 
101.8 
99.9 
102.6 
129.0 
180.3 
197.7 
210.1 
230.2 
149.6 
151.5 
156.5 
152.4 
162.0 

102 

1911 

95 

1912 

101 

1913 

98 

1914 

105 

1915 

100 

1916 

90 

1917 

88 

1918 

94 

1919 

98 

1920 

96 

1921 

104 

1922 

88 

1923 

90 

1924 

93 

1925 

96 

Sources  of  data:  Columns  I  and  II,  computed  from  the  Monthly  Supplements  to  Crops  and 
Markets,  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics.  The  relative  price  is  in  this  case  obtained  by 
dividing  the  actual  price  for  each  year  by  the  average  (arithmetical  mean)  of  the  prices  for  the  five 
years  1910-1914.  The  average  of  the  prices  1910-1914  is  21.6  cents.  The  relative  price  for  1910  is,  there- 
fore, 22.6^-216  =  105:  1911,  19.4-7-21.4  =  90,  etc. 

Column  III — Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  index  converted  to  a  5-year  base  (1910-14),  published  in 
the  Supplement  to  the  Agricultural  Situation,  B.  A.  E.,  June  1925,  54-62. 

Column  IV — Computations  by  author.  The  purchasing  power  is  found  by  dividing  the  "relative 
price"  by  the  "All  Commodity  Index." 

Current  monthly  statistics  can  be  found  in  the  Monthly  Supplement  to  Crops  and  Markets,  pub- 
lished by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Econonmics. 

does  not  take  into  consideration  many  manufactured  articles  which 
have  been  actually  cheapened  by  mass  production.  In  conjunction 
with  purchasing  power  the  egg-feed  price  ratio  should  be  consulted 
p.  36. 

Two  types  of  changes  are  apparent  in  each  of  the  curves  in  figure  7, 
(1)  a  long-time  movement,  and  (2)  short-time  fluctuations.  (1)  Long- 
time changes  are  known  as  secular  trends.  "The  secular  trend  is 
that  part  of  the  fluctuation  which  is  due  to  the  gradual  and  persistent 
tendency  to  change  which  exists  for  an  interval  of  several  years,  an 
interval  the  definite  length  of  which  cannot  be  assigned  but  which  may 


24 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Eelative  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Eggs  and  Agricultural 
Commodities,  United  States,  1910-1925 

Tncfex 


$ 

8? 

S3 

^ 

1? 

s 

s 

CO 

S> 

8 

$ 

^ 
c* 

1 

$ 

§ 

0) 

S3 

5> 

yi 

^ 

$ 

5) 

S) 

5 

5» 

§ 

* 

5 

Fig.  8. — Between  1910  and  1915  the  price  index  for  eggs  and  the  price  index 
for  agricultural  commodities  in  the  United  States  ran  almost  parallel.  From  1916 
to  1919  the  prices  of  agricultural  commodities  in  the  country  as  a  whole  were 
relatively  higher  than  the  prices  for  eggs.  Since  1920  relative  prices  for  eggs  have 
been  higher  than  relative  prices  for  agricultural  commodities  in  general  and 
farmers  have  increased  their  poultry  flocks.  The  downward  trend  in  the  purchas- 
ing power  of  eggs  has  been  less  rapid  than  the  downward  trend  in  the  purchasing 
power  of  other  agricultural  commodities.  Figure  8  should  be  viewed  in  connection 
with  figure  38,  page  93,  giving  the  price  indices  for  chickens  in  the  country.* 
(Table  50,  page  92).    Data  from  table  10,  and  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 


*  Equation  for  the  line  of  trend  of  purchasing  power  of  eggs  is  y  =  96.1  —  .24  x 
origin  January  1,  1918.  Equation  for  the  line  of  trend  of  purchasing  power  of 
all  commodities  is  2/  =  93.6  —  .55  x,  origin  January  1,  1918. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


25 


extend  over  a  generation  and  sometimes  for  a  longer  period."*  The 
causes  of  the  secular  trend  are  those  which  operate  persistently  year 
after  year,  such  as  increase  in  population,  consumption  and  standards 
of  living.  (2)  About  the  secular  trend  are  cyclical  fluctuations,  which 
in  the  case  of  eggs,  are  rather  irregular.     In  times  of  small  profits, 

Eelative  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Eggs,  San  Francisco,  1890-1925 


Index- z 
I9IO-I4 
=  IOO 

Z20 
ZtO 


ZOO 
WO 

no 
/ao 

/50 
140 


«      5 


5>       $ 


gs  0; 


izo 
no 


/ 

In 

1    C 

omrr 
(U.i 

odri 

y 

/ 

/ 
/ 

^N 

V 
/ 

/ 

1 

/ 

/ 

f 

/ 

\\* 

• 

/ 

/ 

1       / 

i 

/ 
/ 

/ 

/ 

-Sec 
Pur 

u/ar 
Pou 

Tnt 

E99- 

;.(S 

V 

1 
1 
1 

/ 

J 

V 

s~ 

/\ 

/N 

y  \ 

/   < 

1 
l   J 

-E99 

(5. 

Inc 
F) 

iex 

\>* 

V 

^ 

s\ 

VJ 

\ 

— V 

/y  / 

'-.  <J 

--*' 

\ 

/ 

V 

^A 

\ 

/ 

Pl 

rchc 
>gs. 

■sing 
(S.F. 

Pov 

'er^ 

V 

s 

'           \ 

"»-..»— 

*■ 

<Z^' 

s<* 

r 

T  "  -1 i          i          i          i          l 1          1        -r 

Fig.  9. — The  period  1890-1914  shows  a  purchasing  power  favorable  to  the 
poultryman.  In  spite  of  the  rise  in  the  price  of  eggs  from  1916  to  1920,  the  prices 
of  all  commodities  increased  even  more  rapidly,  with  a  lower  purchasing  power  as 
a  result.  1925  showed  not  only  an  increase  in  price  but  an  increase  in  purchasing 
power. t     Data  from  table  11,  p.  27. 


decreased  production  has  usually  resulted,  flocks  have  been  cut  down, 
and  under-production  has  been  brought  about.  If  eggs  are  relatively 
high  in  price,  chickens  are  raised  in  too  large  numbers,  and  conse- 
quently prices  begin  to  fall  as  soon  as  there  are  too  many  laying  hens. 


*  Crum,  W.  L.,  and  A.  C.  Patton.    An  introduction  to  the  methods  of  economic 
statistics,  302-303,  1925. 

t  Equation  for  the  line  of  trend  is  2/  =  96.1  — 1.005  x,  origin  1908. 


26 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


From  1910  to  1915  (fig.  7)  there  is  a  close  correlation  between  the 
purchasing  power  of  eggs  and  that  of  "All  Commodities "  in  the 
United  States.  In  1916  "All  Commodity"  prices  advanced  more 
rapidly  than  egg  prices  and  this  lead  was  maintained  until  1921  when 
the  purchasing  power  of  eggs  exceeded  100  per  cent  (104)  of  the 
1910-1914  average.  In  1922,  the  purchasing  power  of  eggs  was  at  a 
disadvantage  to  the  poultryman  (88).  The  improvement  has  been 
marked  since  1922,  1925  being  only  slightly  under  100  per  cent  (96). 
Since  1910,  in  spite  of  the  peak  in  1921,  the  trend  has  been  downward, 
the  decline  during  the  period  1910-1925  in  the  purchasing  power 
being  7.2  per  cent  (trend  values)  on  the  basis  of  1910-1914  average. 


San  Francisco  Wholesale  Quotations  of  Eggs,  1860-1925 


/■Sec 

j/ar  Tr 

■end 

u 

<^ 

J 

v-y 



I 


Fig.  10. — Two  long  time  movements  in  egg  prices  have  been  evident  on  the 
San  Francisco  market.  A  pronounced  decline  took  place  from  1860-1897.  Since 
1897  there  has  been  an  upward  trend  in  prices.  The  peaks  do  not  necessarily  mean 
prosperity  for  the  poultryman.  This  figure  should  be  consulted  in  connection 
with  figure  9,  p.  25.*     Data  from  table  11,  p.  27. 

Purchasing  power  of  eggs,  California. — The  wholesale  prices  of 
eggs  on  the  San  Francisco  market  are  plotted  in  figure  10,  p.  26, 
while  actual  wholesale  farm  prices  (B.  A.  E.)  were  used  in  the  dis- 
cussion with  reference  to  the  United  States  as  a  whole.  There  is  in 
California  a  high  degree  of  correlation  between  the  wholesale  price  and 
the  price  received  by  the  producer  shipping  his  products  to  the  main 
markets.  Two  long-time  movements  are  perceptible  on  the  San  Fran- 
cisco market,  1860  to  1896  and  1896  to  1925  (fig.  10).  Wholesale 
prices  previous  to  1860  are  not  obtainable.  The  total  decline  for  the 
period  1860  to  1896  was  55.23  per  cent  while  the  increase  from  1896 
to  1925  has  been  93  per  cent  (trend  values). 


*  Equation   for   line   of  trend   1860-1896   is   y  =  35.17  —  .746  x,   origin    1878. 
Equation  for  line  of  trend  1896-1925  is  y  e=  33.43  +  .366  x,  origin  January  1, 1911. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


27 


Figure  11  shows  the  purchasing  power  of  eggs  in  San  Francisco 
based  upon  a  1910-1914  average  for  both  egg  quotations  and  all 
commodities. 


TABLE  11 

Eggs:  Actual  and  Eelative  Wholesale  Prices,  Purchasing  Power, 
San  Francisco,  1860-1925 


Year 


1860 
1861 
1862 
1863 
1864 
1865 
1866 
1867 
1868 
1869 
1870 
1871 
1872 
1873 
1874 
1875 
1876 
1877 
1878 
1879 
1880 
1881 
1882 
1883 
1884 
1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 


Actual 

average 

price 


42.0 
40.5 
50.2 
46.7 
46.2 
61.0 
43.3 
39.6 
46.7 
46.9 
42.4 
40.3 
44.0 
37.9 
35.8 
38.0 
37.1 
34.1 
33.4 
27.3 
27.4 
29.1 
31.4 
32.9 
31.1 
27.6 
26.1 
28.0 
30.6 
26.9 
27.2 
27.1 
27.4 


Relative 
price 


132 
127 
158 
147 
145 
192 
136 
124 
147 
147 
133 
127 
138 
119 
112 
119 
116 
107 
105 


99 
103 

98 
87 
82 


96 

85 

85.4 

85.1 

86.1 


Purchasing 
power 


III 


148 
141 
150 
111 
85 
99 
80 
81 
103 
107 
105 
104 
111 
97 
94 
104 
109 
108 
115 
100 
90 
97 
102 
109 
110 
105 
100 
106 
114 
101 
104 
104 
113 


Year 


1893 
1894 
1895. 
1896 
1897. 
1898. 
1899. 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
1907. 
1908 
1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914. 
1915 
1916. 
1917. 
1918. 
1919. 
1920. 
1921. 
1922. 
1923. 
1924 
1925 


Actual 

average 

price 


28.3 
23.1 
22.2 
21.7 
22.6 
23.8 
26.2 
24.8 
24.9 
26.4 
30.1 
29.2 
29.5 
29.8 
33.4 
31.3 
36.6 
33.8 
30.7 
29.9 


Relative 
price 


II 


72.6 
69.7 
68.2 
71.0 
74.8 
82.3 
77.9 
78.2 
82.9 
94.5 
91.7 
92.7 
93.6 
104.9 
98.3 
115.0 
106.2 
96.4 


104  6 
97.1 
99.6 
125.3 
163.0 
172.4 
174.9 
128.1 
111  5 
114.3 
112.8 
125  0 


Purchasing 
power 


III 


114 
104 
98 
100 
104 
109 
108 
95 
97 
97 
108 
105 
106 
104 
110 
107 
117 
103 
102 
93 
97 
105 
95 
77 
70 
82 
82 
76 
86 
74 
73 
74 
78 


Sources  of  data:  Column  I.  Computed  by  author  on  average  of  monthly  net  wholesale  quotations. 
Monthly  quotations  computed  by  taking  arithmetic  mean  of  Wednesday  quotations  for  each  month. 
Original  quotations  obtained  from  California  Farmer  1854-1870,  Pacific  Rural  Press,  1871-1926.  The 
author  has  computed  the  net  quotations  as  discounts  were  applicable  to  the  quotations  published 
between  Jan.  1,  1918  and  Dec.  31,1925.  Column  II.  Computations  by  the  author.  Base  1910-1914=31.84 
cents  equals  100.  Column  III.  Computations  by  author  based  on  Relative  Prices  of  Eggs  and  Relative 
Prices  of  All  Commodities  (Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics). 

The  general  tendency  has  been  for  eggs  to  be  higher  in  price  than 
"all  commodities,"  when  referring  both  to  the  base  period  1910-1914. 
California  had  an  import  rather  than  an  export  balance  in  eggs,  as  it 
has  been  exporting  them  only  for  the  past  decade  or  two.  The  results 
as  shown  in  figure  11  might  thus  be  expected. 


28 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Since  1914,  "All  Commodities"  have  been  relatively  higher  than 
eggs  on  either  the  San  Francisco  or  the  Los  Angeles  markets  (figs.  9, 
and  12) — this  in  common  with  the  trend  in  the  United  States  as  a 
whole.  If,  however,  the  purchasing  power  of  eggs  on  California 
markets  is  compared  with  that  on  eastern  markets,  California  is  at  a 
disadvantage,  for  it  has  become  a  surplus  instead  of  a  deficiency  state 
with  reference  to  eggs.  Until  1915,  quotations  on  the  San  Francisco 
and  Los  Angeles  markets  were  relatively  higher  than  those  on  other 
large  markets  of  the  country  (tables  111,  p.  163,  and  112,  p.  164  for 


Purchasing  Power  of  Eggs,  San  Francisco,  1860-1925 


ISO 
J40 
130 
IZO 

no 
/oo 

00 
80 


%- 

x 

T 

^urc 

It  a  sing 

Po\~/&i 

-    of   £ 

jgs 

± 

a 

A 

\ 

,J\ 

i 

c 

\\ 

A 

r 

vv 

A 

y\ 

r 

V 

\N 

V 

\\ 

\i 

\ 

/ 

^ 

\j 

vy 

\ 

\\ 

\n 

A 

\r 

'u 

I 

l          I          i          i          i          i          i          I  -       [       -  r — 1 — ■ — i 

Fig.  11. — The  California  poultryman  since  1860  has  been  in  a  relatively 
advantageous  position  compared  with  the  producers  of  other  commodities.  From 
1868  to  1915  the  purchasing  power  of  eggs  was  favorable  during  the  major  portion 
of  the  years.  In  spite  of  the  prices  obtained  from  1915  to  1920  the  poultryman 
was  in  an  unfavorable  position  owing  to  the  high  prices  which  he  had  to  pay  for 
other  commodities.  It  should  be  remembered  that  until  1910  California  imported 
eggs  and  a  freight  differential  acted  in  favor  of  the  state.  Data  from  table  11, 
p.  27. 

San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  prices.     Prices  for  New  York  and 
Chicago,  U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1925,  pp.  1224,  1225). 

Too  much  stress  must  not  be  placed  on  the  purchasing  power  of 
eggs  in  California.  For  the  state  as  a  whole,  no  entirely  satisfactory 
weighting  system  for  obtaining  the  yearly  price  on  the  farm  has  been 
developed.  Both  the  seasonal  production  and  the  seasonal  price  render 
it  difficult  to  gauge  the  returns  to  the  producer  accurately,  although 
an  excellent  start  has  been  made  toward  obtaining  more  certain 
statistics  for  production  within  the  state.  In  the  first  part  of  this 
discussion  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  constantly  that  the  yearly 
average  prices  used  in  the  computation  of  purchasing  power  are 
simply  the  averages  of  the  monthly  average  wholesale  prices  for  eggs. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


29 


It  \ 

\ 

\ 

V 

| 

// 

\  \ 

if 

1/ 

a  V 

I 

/       V 

5 

\ 

/ 

j 

1 
1 

1 

w 

i 

lip 

/ 

1 

\ 

/  3 

/ 

Jjr' 

y\ 

"*^s 

\, 

d 

U 

\ 

1 

** 

-*-- 

-— «. 

\ 

\ 

\ 

*P 

\ 

1 

\ 

^- 

^3 

N 

\ 

/ 

\ 

"-v 

^> 

\ 

s 

1 

" — ~ 

4 

y 

/ 

/ 

i 

\ 

n 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\\ 

I 

/ 
/ 
f 

\ 

\ 

\ 

^ 

I90I 

I90Z 

/903 

/904 

190S 

I90& 

1907 

1908 

1909 

I9IO 

1911 

I9IZ 

1913 

I9ia 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

I9Z0 

1921 

I9ZZ 

I9Z3 

/9Z4 

I9Z5 


30 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


It  should  also  be  remembered  that  the  term  ''purchasing  power" 
is  used  in  comparison  with  the  wholesale  prices  of  404  commodities. 
It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  poultryman  purchases  any  consider- 
able percentage  of  some  of  these  commodities,  and  even  if  he  did  pur- 
chase all  of  them,  the  prices  listed  are  for  the  country  as  a  whole  and 


TABLE  12 

Eggs:  Actual  and  Eelative  Wholesale  Prices,  Purchasing  Power, 
Los  Angeles,  1901-1925 


Year 

Actual 

price 

(cents  per 

dozen) 

Relative 
price 

Purchasing 
power 

Year 

Actual 

price 

(cents  per 

dozen) 

Relative 
price 

Purchasing 
power 

I 

II 

III 

1914 

I 

II 

III 

1901 

22.7 
24.8 
25.9 
28.0 
27.8 
28.5 
30.1 
30.2 
35.6 
34.8 
33.2 
32.3 
32.1 

67.5 
73.9 
77.0 
83.5 
82.9 
84.9 
89.7 
90.1 
106.0 
103.7 
99.0 
96.3 
95.7 

84 
86 
89 
96 
94 
94 
94 
98 
107 
101 
105 
95 
94 

35.1 
32.0 
33.8 
40.0 
51.3 
55.0 
56.1 
42.7 
38.2 
38.7 
38.2 
41.7 

104.7 
95.5 
100.7 
119.2 
153.0 
163.7 
167.1 
127.1 
113.7 
115.3 
113.9 
124.3 

105 

1902 

1915 

93 

1903 

1916 

78 

1904 

1917 

66 

1905 

1918 

77 

1906 . . 

1919 

78 

1907 

1920 

73 

1908 

1921 

85 

1909 

1922 

75 

1910 

1923 

74 

1911... 

1924 

75 

1912 

1925 

77 

1913 

Sources  of  data :  Column  I.  Based  upon  computations  made  by  author.  Wholesale  price  is  the  arith- 
metic averaeg  of  monthly  quotations.  Monthly  quotation  obtained  by  computing  the  arithmetic  means 
of  Wednesday  quotations  in  each  month.  Original  quotations  from  Cal.  Cultivator.  All  quotations  are 
net  as  the  trade  discount  has  been  subtracted  by  the  author.  Column  II.  Computed  by  author,  based 
upon  1910-1914 =33 .  50  =  100.  Column  III.  Computations  by  author  based  upon  Column  II  and  "All 
Commodity"  index  (Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics). 

not  especially  for  California.  From  the  preliminary  cost  of  produc- 
tion studies  carried  on  to  date  (pages  146-155),  it  should  be  noted  that 
the  poultrymen  in  the  Petaluma  section  purchased  feeding  stuffs 
amounting  to  50  per  cent  or  over  of  the  costs  of  production.  While 
the  purchasing  power  studies  are  of  interest — especially  to  the  indus- 
try, as  a  whole,  the  individual  poultryman  is  perhaps  more  interested 
in  the  ratio  of  feed  costs  to  egg  prices. 

Comparative  prices  of  eggs  in  certain  cities. — Higher  prices  were 
realized  for  fresh  extra  eggs  on  the  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles 
markets  for  the  first  part  of  the  decade  1910-1920  than  on  eastern 
markets.  In  comparison  with  the  1910-1914  quotations  as  a  base, 
prices  in  the  east  since  1918  have  been  relatively  higher  than  those  in 
California.  In  certain  cases,  California  quotations  were  actually  below 
those  in  some  of  the  eastern  centers. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


31 


Eveiy  effort  should  be  made  to  decrease  costs  of  production,  to 
produce  ' '  quality ' '  products,  and  to  lessen  the  cost  of  transportation. 
Under  the  stimulus  of  relatively  high  prices,  a  great  expansion  took 
place  in  the  poultry  industry  of  the  state  and  large  shipments  of  eggs 
were  sent  to  the  eastern  markets.  California  was  thus  placed  in  the 
role  of  an  exporter  rather  than  an  importer.  This  surplus  in  the 
state  has  made  the  price  relatively  lower  in  California  than  on  the 

Average  Prices  of  Eggs  Per  Dozen  at  New  York,  Chicago  and  San  Francisco, 

1910-1925 


Fig.  13. — The  average  price  per  dozen  for  certain  grades  of  eggs  at  three 
cities  of  the  country  gives  a  partial  explanation  of  the  reason  for  the  purchasing 
power  of  eggs  in  California  failing  to  hold  up  as  well  as  the  purchasing  power  in 
the  country  as  a  whole.  It  should  be  especially  noted  that  from  1910  to  1915 
quotations  of  extra  eggs  in  San  Francisco  were  far  above  the  quotations  for 
certain  grades  of  eggs  in  New  York  and  Chicago.  Since  1916  the  quotations  in 
San  Francisco  have  been  more  nearly  equal  to  quotations  for  standard  grades 
in  eastern  cities.  Data  for  New  York  and  Chicago  from  U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook 
1924,  pp.  1002  and  1003.  1925  prices  furnished  by  courtesy  of  Bureau  of 
Agricultural  Economics.     Data  for  San  Francisco  from  table  11,  p.  27. 


eastern  markets.  It  is  to  these  markets,  especially  New  York,  that 
California  has  been  sending  the  larger  part  of  the  surplus.  The 
increase  in  production,  placing  the  state  on  an  exporting  basis,  has 
made  competition  keener  than  before  the  war,  and  from  all  indi- 


32  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

cations  has  established  this  as  the  basis  on  which  the  state  will  have 
to  compete  in  the  future.  Isolation,  which  at  one  time  tended  to  make 
prices  higher  in  California  has,  together  with  the  surplus,  made  prices 
lower  during  the  past  few  years. 

Purchasing  power  of  eggs  and  other  agricultural  commodities  in 
the  United  States. — The  census  statistics  for  1925  show  a  large  increase 
in  the  number  of  poultry  in  the  country  as  a  whole.  The  diagram 
shown  in  figure  8,  page  24,  presents  a  partial  explanation  at  least 
of  this  expansion  in  the  poultry  industry.  A  comparison  is  made 
between  the  relative  prices  for  eggs  in  the  United  States  and  the  price 
index  of  thirty  other  agricultural  commodities.  (Bureau  of  Agri- 
cultural Economics  statistics  as  published  in  the  Supplement  to  the 
Agricultural  Situation,  June,  1925,  pp.  54-62.)  In  1910  the  pur- 
chasing power  of  eggs  was  above  that  of  the  combined  agricultural 
products.  During  the  year  1911  it  showed  a  considerable  decline,  but 
in  1912  it  advanced  and  remained  above  that  of  the  other  commodities 
until  1916.  From  1916  to  1919  other  agricultural  products  advanced 
more  rapidly  in  price  and  hence  in  purchasing  power  than  did  eggs. 
From  1920  through  1925  the  relative  price  of  eggs  and  the  purchasing 
power  have  been  higher  than  for  other  agricultural  products.  For  the 
country  as  a  whole,  the  price  changes  of  eggs  from  year  to  year  have 
not  been  as  violent  as  in  the  case  of  other  commodities.  From  1920  to 
1921,  it  should  be  noted  that  although  the  price  of  eggs  declined  it 
did  not  decline  as  much  as  that  of  other  farm  products.  In  spite 
of  the  adverse  agricultural  conditions  existing  in  1921,  eggs  showed  a 
favorable  purchasing  power,  being  over  100  per  cent.  Although  the 
differences  between  the  purchasing  power  of  other  agricultural  prod- 
ucts are  less  than  in  1920  or  1921,  eggs  have  been  relatively  of  a  higher 
value  than  the  aggregate  of  the  other  farm  products  since  1920. 

The  trends  of  relative  prices  show  that  during  the  sixteen-year 
period  the  general  tendency  has  been  for  eggs  to  advance  more  rapidly 
in  price  than  other  agricultural  products.  Of  more  interest  are  the 
lines  of  trends  for  purchasing  power.  The  sixteen-year  period  shows 
a  decline  for  both  eggs  and  other  commodities — but  less  for  eggs  than 
for  other  products. 

Being  relatively  higher  in  price  than  most  other  agricultural 
products  during  the  past  six-year  period,  the  reasons  for  the  large 
increase  in  the  chicken  population  of  the  nation  are  obvious.  The 
bulk  of  the  nation's  eggs  is  produced  as  by-products  in  other  lines  of 
agricultural  endeavor  on  hundreds  of  thousands  of  farms  where  it  is 
comparatively  easy  to  increase  or  decrease  production. 


San  Francisco 

Los  Angeles 

33.60 

37.14 

24.52 

28.60 

19.84 

23.72 

21.30 

23.90 

22.40 

23.82 

23.80 

26.16 

26.98 

29.30 

32.02 

33.80 

39.00 

38.82 

46.44 

45.52 

51.06 

48.88 

40.94 

42.54 

[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  33 

Monthly  index  of  purchasing  power. — Since  seasonal  variation  in 
price  and  production  make  it  difficult  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  yearly 
price,  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  compile  a  monthly  index  of  pur- 
chasing power  at  both  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles.  The  pro- 
ducer is  more  interested  in  obtaining  a  cent  more  per  dozen  for  his 
eggs  in  March  and  April  than  he  is  in  October  or  November ;  con- 
sequently, he  is  more  desirous  of  seeing  the  purchasing  power  100 
per  cent  in  the  months  of  flush  production. 

The  arithmetic  mean  for  each  month  during  the  period  1910-1914 
has  been  computed  and  is  as  follows : 


January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

The  ' '  All  Commodity  Index ' '  by  months  was  then  computed  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  egg  prices.  The  monthly  arithmetic  mean  (1910- 
1914)  for  the  "All  Commodity  Index"  is: 

January 99.6 

February 99.4 

March 100.0 

April 100.5 

May 99.7 

June 99.3 

July 99.7 

August 101. 1 

September 101.6 

October 100.2 

November 99. 1 

December 98.6 

A  monthly  relative  price  for  eggs  was  next  obtained  by  dividing 
the  price  for  each  month  by  the  average  price  for  each  month  of  the 
base  period,  1910-1914.  Likewise,  a  monthly  relative  for  "All  Com- 
modities" was  obtained  by  dividing  the  "All  Commodity  Index"  for 
each  month  by  the  average  of  each  month  during  the  base  period, 
1910-1914. 

The  purchasing  power  by  months  was  then  obtained  by  dividing 
the  egg  price  relative  by  the  "All  Commodity"  relative  for  the 
corresponding  month. 


34 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  13 

Monthly  Purchasing  Power  of  Eggs,  San  Francisco,  1910-1926 

Months  of  1910-1914=100,  i.e.,  January,  1910-1914=100,  etc. 


Month 


January 

February.... 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September. 

October 

November... 
December... 


1910 


93 
105 
103 
108 
105 
108 
106 
108 
104 
102 
109 
102 


1911 


111 
100 
100 
103 
98 
103 
102 
104 
102 
100 
100 


1912 

1913 

105 

83 

101 

77 

104 

89 

98 

90 

91 

95 

89 

101 

92 

97 

88 

99 

94 

98 

93 

102 

91 

106 

81 

106 

1914 


123 
106 
104 
105 
103 
104 
102 
103 
101 
102 
94 
112 


1915 


104 
102 
101 
93 
91 
96 
93 
96 
95 
87 


1916 


1917 


Month 


1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

91 

83 

72 

94 

74 

70 

70 

85 

83 

77 

77 

85 

77 

70 

70 

71 

97 

97 

83 

95 

82 

77 

75 

93 

89 

102 

78 

80 

82 

79 

81 

88 

84 

102 

74 

69 

73 

79 

75 

89 

83 

94 

73 

78 

71 

74 

85 

91 

81 

85 

78 

96 

62 

69 

80 

87 

78 

77 

74 

90 

60 

78 

74 

79 

72 

76 

76 

86 

74 

78 

79 

73 

74 

73 

77 

88 

80 

77 

72 

73 

71 

69 

78 

81 

69 

64 

65 

64 

95 

76 

91 

86 

80 

70 

71 

66 

1926 


January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September. 

October 

November.. 
December... 


63 

67 

87 

84 

81 

83 

81 

80* 

75* 

72* 


Source  of  data:    Computations  by  author.    See  page  164. 
*  Subject  to  revision. 


TABLE  14 

Monthly  Purchasing  Power  of  Eggs,  Los  Angeles,  1910-1926 

Months  1910-1914  =  100,  i.e.,  January,  1910-1914=100,  etc. 


Month 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September... 

October 

November 

December 


1910 

98 
91 
99 
102 
105 
101 
106 
105 
107 
102 
104 
97 


1911 

102 
115 
104 
106 
107 
104 
106 
107 
102 
103 
100 
104 


1912 

95 
96 

106 
99 
85 
98 
97 
92 
97 
93 

100 
89 


1913 

91 
89 
93 
88 
92 
92 
89 
95 
93 
95 
100 
101 


1914 

116 
110 

98 
106 
109 
106 
103 
101 

94 
108 

97 
110 


1915 

92 
96 
93 
100 
103 
90 
92 
94 
92 
92 
91 
85 


1916 

84 
86 
78 


1917 

65 
65 
69 
78 
74 
67 
63 
64 
64 
65 
61 
66 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


35 


TABLE  14—  (Continued) 
Monthly  Purchasing  Power  of  Eggs,  Los  Angeles,  1910-1926 

Months  1910-1914  =  100,  i.  e.,  January  1910-1914  =  100,  etc. 


Month 


January 

February... 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November. 
December.. 


1918 


1919 


1920 


1921 


1922 


1923 


1924 


1925 


1926 


79 
76 

78* 
77* 
74* 


Source  of  data:    Computations  by  author.     See  page  163. 
*  Subject  to  revision. 

Seasonal  variation  in  the  prices  of  extra  and  pullet  eggs. — Quota- 
tions at  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  show  the  same  general  seasonal 
variation,  February  to  July,  inclusive,  being  the  months  of  relatively 
low  quotations  on  extra  eggs.  While  pullet  eggs  do  not  decline  rela- 
tively as  much  as  extra  eggs,  neither  do  they  advance  as  much.  One 
interesting  difference  between  the  quotations  at  Los  Angeles  and  San 


TABLE  15 

Seasonal  Variation  in  Prices  of  Extra  and  Pullet  Eggs,  San  Francisco 

and  Los  Angeles 


San  Francisco 

Los  Angeles 

Months 

Extras 

Pullets 

Extras 

Pullets 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

106.1 

77.4 

65.5 

69.2 

71.5 

76.0 

83.4 

99.5 

120.0 

144.2 

154.0 

133.2 

100.0 

112.5 
81.2 
71.6 
76.1 
77.8 
80.3 
86.1 
98.3 
114.5 
133  0 
140.0 
129.2 

100.0 

106.0 
81.4 
68.9 
72.6 
75.0 
79.8 
87.7 
102.7 
115.4 
136  5 
144.0 
130  0 

100.0 

115.4 

February 

80.2 

March 

72.6 

April 

76.8 

79.6 

83  3 

July 

88.9 

August 

99.3 

September 

106.0 

October 

122.7 

November 

137.1 

December 

138.0 

Average 

100.0 

The  above  table  shows  that  if  100  were  taken  as  an  average  for  each  month,  106. 1  would  be  the  rela- 
tive wholesale  price  for  extras  at  San  Francisco  in  January,  etc. 

Source  of  data:  All  computations  have  been  made  by  the  author,  median  link  relative  method 
being  used.    Column  I,  1900-1925;  II,  1912-1925;  III,  1900-1925;  IV,  1917-1925. 


36  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Francisco  is  that  during  February  pullet  eggs  have  been  relatively 
higher  than  extras  at  San  Francisco  without  there  being  any  consider- 
able difference  at  Los  Angeles.  During  December  on  the  other  hand, 
pullet  eggs  have  been  relatively  higher  at  Los  Angeles  than  extra  eggs, 
while  the  reverse  has  been  true  at  San  Francisco. 

A  comparison  of  prices  on  the  San  Francisco  market  during  the 
five-year  period  1921-1925  with  those  of  the  period  1900-1904,  show 
the  relative  prices  in  general  to  have  dropped  during  the  winter 
months  and  risen  during  the  period  March  to  July,  inclusive.  This 
same  general  tendency  is  apparent  on  the  Los  Angeles  market  except 
for  the  fact  that  the  prices  during  the  fall  months  were  relatively 
higher  during  1921-1925  than  from  1900  to  1904. 


THE    EGG-FEED    PRICE    RATIO 

A  valuable  conception  of  the  status  of  the  egg  industry  is  gained 
by  a  study  of  the  purchasing  power  of  the  product  in  terms  of  feed 
rather  than  in  dollars  and  cents.  The  fact  that  eggs  sell  high  in 
November  of  one  year  and  somewhat  lower  in  the  same  month  of  the 
next  year  is  not  of  as  much  concern  to  the  producer  as  whether  the 
product  will  purchase  feed  at  a  favorable  ratio. 

Egg-feed  price  ratio,  Petaluma. — The  egg-feed  price  ratio  used  in 
this  study  indicates  the  number  of  dozens  of  fresh  extra  eggs  required 
to  purchase  100  pounds  of  feed  (50  pounds  of  grain,  50  pounds  of 
mash).  The  ration  used  in  the  study  of  the  egg-feed  price  ratio  is 
as  follows : 


Grain 

Mash 

12.5  pounds  wheat 

20  pounds  bran 

12.5  pounds  corn 

10  pounds  corn  meal 

12.5  pounds  barley 

10  pounds  barley 

12.5  pounds  milo 

5  pounds  meat  scrap 

5  pounds  fish  scrap 

50  pounds 

50  pounds 

This  ration  was  used  in  the  Petaluma  egg-laying  contest. 

This  egg-feed  price  ratio  is  not  comparable  with  an  egg-feed  price 
ratio  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole  or  for  any  of  its  geographic 
subdivisions.  Such  a  ratio,  to  be  of  any  value,  must  necessarily  take 
into  consideration  other  pertinent  factors.  It  is  obvious  that  other 
factors  such  as  (1)  average  egg  yield  per  hen,  (2)  seasonal  yield  per 
hen,  (3)  quality  of  product,  (4)  economy  of  production,  and  (5) 
efficiency  of  marketing,  play  an  important  part  in  the  study  of  the 
egg-feed  ratio. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


37 


The  proportions  of  feed  ingredients  given  above  remained  the  same 
for  the  fifteen  years  (1911-1925)  except  in  1918,  1919,  and  1920,  when 
wheat  was  eliminated  from  the  ration  on  account  of  the  war  emerg- 
ency. Equal  parts  of  corn,  barley,  and  milo  were  substituted  during 
this  period  for  the  grain  portion  of  the  ration. 


Egg  and  Feed  Wholesale  Price  Kelatives,  Petaluma,  1910-1925 


I9.D-I4 
-  IOO 

/90 
/80 

no 
i&o 

I5C 
/40 
/30 

/zo 
//o 

fOO 
90 


A 

/ 
/ 

V 

Fee< 

/  In 

dex 

-— - 

f 

\ 

i 

r 

/ 

/ 

i 

5ecc 
f&ec 

/or 

y  Jhc 

rrenc 
'ex 

i-n 

/ 
/ 

/ 

/ 
/ 

/ 

It 

\ 

y 

/ 

\  1 

-Sec 
£99 

War 

Trerr 

d   \ 

t 

/ 

N 

A 

jf 

^57< 

7    ?n 

d&K 

^ 

*^\ 

1 

1 — - 

- 

- 

r~~~~~ 

. 

=5= 

5 
5! 

1 

5? 

5l 

91 

!5 

5> 

51 

K 

SB 

5) 

5j 

L      &      §      §      §      § 
i       5j       5)       <!       5>       5> 

Fig.  14. — From  1910  to  1915  the  differences  between  the  relative  prices  of 
feed  and  eggs  in  the  Petaluma  district  were  not  great.  In  1916,  however,  the 
feed  price  index  began  to  advance  more  rapidly  than  the  egg  price  index  and 
remained  higher  until  1921,  which  was  a  favorable  year  for  the  poultryman  buying 
all  of  his  feed  as  the  feed  price  index  fell  below  the  egg  price  index  for  that 
year.  The  tendency  since  1913  has  been  for  the  prices  of  feeds  to  advance  more 
rapidly  than  the  price  of  eggs.     Data  from  table  18,  p.  41. 

Comparisons  throughout  the  year  are  based  upon  weekly  feed  and 
egg  quotations  in  the  Petaluma  poultry  district  of  California.  The 
feed  quotations  used  are  wholesale  quotations  published  in  the 
Petaluma  Weekly  Poultry  Journal.  The  costs  of  mixing  and  grinding 
the  feeds  have  been  added  to  the  feed  costs.  The  egg  quotations  used 
are  the  net  wholesale  quotations  of  fresh  extra  eggs  on  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Wholesale  Dairy  Produce  Exchange.     These   quotations  were 

*  The  equation  of  the  feed  index  is  y  =  136.6  +  2.8  x,  origin  1919.  The  equa- 
tion of  the  egg  index  is  y  =  125.2  +  1.7  re,  origin  1919. 


38 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


used  because  of  the  difficulties  encountered  in  obtaining  comparable 
prices  paid  to  farmers  over  long  periods  of  time. 

Figure  15  shows  the  yearly  variation  in  the  egg-feed  ratio.   During 
the  fifteen  year  period,  1911-25,  the  range  of  the  yearly  ratio  has 


TABLE  16 

Egg-Feed  Price  Katio- 


-Petaluma 


The  number  of  dozen  extra  eggs  required  to  purchase  100  pounds  of  the  following  mixture:  50 
pounds  mash  (20  pounds  bran,  10  pounds  corn  meal,  10  pounds  ground  barley,  5  pounds  meat  scrap, 
5  pounds  fish  scrap);  50  pounds  grain  (equal  parts  corn,  barley,  milo  and  wheat). 


Month 


January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Average 

Month 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Average 


1911 


7.11 


1912 


6.39 
8.77 
10.25 
10.80 
11.00 
10.43 
8.43 
7.17 
5.66 
4.66 
4.08 
5.52 

7.76 


1913 


6.70 
9.62 
10.54 
9.95 
9.50 
8.30 
7.35 
6.23 
5.09 
5.25 
3.41 
3.91 

7.15 


1914 


4.69 
6.95 
9.40 

8.73 
8.40 

7.78 
6.72 
5.66 
5.04 
3.89 
3.80 
4.16 

6.27 


1915 


9.00 
10.40 
9.58 
9.00 
8.61 
7.75 
6.35 
5.18 
4.18 
3.61 
4.55 

7.07 


1916 


5.65 
7.28 
9.26 
8.90 
8.64 
8.04 
7.26 
6.61 
5.73 
4.82 
5.04 
6.19 

6.95 


1917 


8.45 
10.24 
10.32 
10.91 
11.04 
9.68 
8.46 
7.69 
6  55 
6.04 
6.79 

8.59 


1918 


6.00 
8.64 

9.95 
10.14 

9.54 
8.94 
7.75 
6.72 
5.79 
4.73 
4.13 
4.07 

7.20 


1919 


5.60 
8.45 

7.77 
7.30 
7.06 


6  44 


1920 


7.34 


1921 


4.96 
7.45 
8.29 
9.43 
10.45 
9.63 
6.37 
5.55 
4.56 
3.64 
3.44 
3.90 

6.47 


1922 


10.21 

9.38 
10.18 
9.08 
8.95 
7.80 
5.06 
3.93 
4.36 
5.13 


7.39 


1923 


6.63 
9.35 
10.18 
9.65 
9.40 
9.20 
8.55 
6.15 
5.30 
3.87 
4.71 
5.29 

7.36 


1924 


9.46 
10.55 
10.50 
10.35 

8.55 
8.71 
8.08 
6  35 
5.75 
5.75 
6.29 

8.10 


1925 


6.63 
10.80 
10.41 
9.85 
8.26 
8.44 
7.73 
7.08 
6.03 
4.93 
4.85 
5.77 

7.57 


1926 


7.44 
9.49 
8.66 
8.24 
8.01 
7.16 
6.84 
6.07 
5.18 
4.46 


Source  of  data:  All  computations  by  author.  The  aggregate  price  of  each  ration  for  the  period  was 
computed  by  using  the  wholesale  prices  of  feed  quoted  weekly  in  the  Petaluma  Weekly  Poultry  Journal. 
The  wholesale  prices  of  eggs  at  San  Francisco  were  used  in  the  study.  The  figures  above  were  obtained 
by  dividing  the  wholesale  price  of  eggs  into  the  wholesale  price  of  one  hundred  pounds  of  the  ration, 
plus  a  charge  for  grinding  and  mixing. 

been  from  6.27  dozen,  or  75.2  eggs,  in  1914  to  8.59  dozen  or  102.8 
eggs  in  1917.  The  arithmetic  mean  for  the  period  is  7.25  dozen  or 
87.0  eggs. 

There  has  been  an  upward  trend  in  the  egg-feed  ratio  as  is  shown 
by  the  line  of  trend  in  figure  15.  From  1911  to  1925,  the  number  of 
dozen  extra  eggs  required  to  purchase  100  pounds  of  feed  increased 
5.4  per  cent  (trend  values). 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


39 


The  relative  prices  for  eggs  and  feeds  (for  the  ration  used)  are 
shown  in  figure  14.  Both  indices  are  based  on  the  period  1910-1914 
as  100,  and  it  may  be  noted  that  there  is  a  fairly  close  agreement 
between  these  two.  During  1916,  however,  feed  increased  far  more 
rapidly  in  price  than  did  eggs.  The  drop  in  the  feed  index  in  1921, 
however,  was  greater  than  that  in  the  egg  index,  although  in  1922  the 
egg  index  fell  below  that  of  feed.  The  tendency  in  1925  and  during 
the  first  ten  months  of  1926  was  for  the  egg  index  to  gain  on  the 
feed  index.  The  general  trend  during  the  past  thirteen  years,  1913- 
1926,  has  been  for  feed  to  rise  somewhat  more  rapidly  in  price  than 


No.  Doz.  Extr-a 
Eo&&  Requir-ec/ 
J-o   Purchase 
/OO  LbS. 
Feed 


Egg-Feed  Price  Batio,  Petaluma,  1911-1925 


-E99 

-r&6 

>d  Ri, 

itio 

\ 

4. 

— ». , 

-    Trt 

?nc/J 

[  ■ " 

—  - 



1 

Fig.  15. — The  chart  shows  the  number  of  dozen  eggs  at  the  average  wholesale 
price  per  year  which  are  required  to  purchase  one  hundred  pounds  of  a  standard 
poultry  ration.  Since  1910  there  has  been  a  slight  tendency  for  the  prices  of 
feed  in  the  Petaluma  area  to  increase  more  rapidly  than  the  prices  for  extra  eggs. 
The  years  1914,  1919  and  1921  were  especially  favorable  for  the  poultryman 
buying  his  feed  while  1912,  1917  (in  spite  of  the  high  prices  for  eggs)  and  1924 
were  unfavorable.*     Data  from  table  17,  p.  40. 

eggs.  This  is  shown  quite  plainly  in  figure  14  by  the  trend  of  the 
relative  prices  of  feed  and  eggs.  The  ratio  fluctuates  above  and  below 
the  trend,  being  sometimes  above  and  sometimes  below  it.  These 
fluctuations  are  caused  in  part  by  cyclical  changes  and  in  part  by 
accidental  changes.  During  nine  of  the  fifteen  years  covered  by  the 
study,  namely,  in  1911,  1912,  1913,  1917,  1920,  1922,  1924,  and  1925, 
the  ratio  was  less  favorable  than  normal.  Two  or  three  years  appar- 
ently are  required  to  complete  the  upward  or  downward  movement  of 
the  cycle,  viz,  1912-1914,  1914-1917,  1917-1919,  1921-1924. 


*  Equation  for  line  of  trend  is  y  =  7.003  +  .02722  x,  origin   1911. 


40  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  wide  fluctuations  in  egg  prices  month  by  month  and  over  a 
period  of  years  constitute  one  of  the  most  important  problems  with 
which  the  poultry  industry  has  to  deal.  A  study  of  table  17  and 
figure  16  (fifteen-year  period)  shows  that  March  stands  out  as  the 
month  of  high  egg-feed  price  ratio  and  low  egg  prices  while  November 
has  the  lowest  ratio  and  is  the  month  of  highest  egg  prices.  The 
order  of  the  months  in  the  egg-feed  price  ratio  is  the  inverse  of  what 
is  found  in  the  variation  of  wholesale  egg  prices. 

There  is  no  considerable  difference  in  the  prices  of  feed  for  the 
various  months.  Therefore,  the  comparison  of  the  prices  received  for 
eggs  and  the  resulting  ratio  to  feed  costs  has  value.  More  eggs  should 
be  produced  during  the  last  five  months  of  the  year.  This  is  a  fact 
generally  admitted ;  and  the  most  efficient  poultryman  is  managing  his 
flock  now  with  this  end  in  view.  The  majority  of  the  people  engaged 
in  the  poultry  industry  have  a  long  way  to  go,  however,  before 
production  will  materially  change  the  fall  and  winter  prices. 

A  study  of  the  egg-feed  ratio  coupled  with  a  study  of  the  increase 
in  average  egg  production  gives  a  partial  explanation  of  how  persons 
already  in  the  industry  in  California  continue  to  make  a  profit,  and 
in  addition,  it  offers  a  partial  explanation  for  the  expansion  which  has 
taken  place. 

Seasonal  variation. — The  seasonal  variation  in  the  egg-feed  price 
ratio  is  shown  in  table  17  and  in  figure  16  (page  41).  In  table  17 
the  average  month  is  taken  as  100,  all  percentages  above  or  below  100 
being  deviations  from  the  average.  The  seasonal  variation  in  the 
wholesale  prices  of  fresh  extra  eggs  at  San  Francisco  is  also  given. 

TABLE  17 

Seasonal  Variations  in  Egg-Feed  Price  Eatio  and  in  Quotations  on 

Extra  Eggs 

(100  =  normal  for  month) 

Egg- Feed  Price  Ratio  Fresh  Extra  Quotations 

I  II 

November 59  March 66 

October 64  April 69 

December 69  May 72 

September 76  June 76 

January 88  February 77 

August 93  July 83 

July 109  August 100 

February 120  January 106 

June 124  September 120 

May 130  December 133 

April 133  October 144 

March 136  November 154 

Source  of  data:  Column  I— computations  by  the  author  based  upon  data  in  Table  16.  _  The  median 
link  relative  method  was  used.  Column  II — computations  by  author  based  upon  compilations  of  whole- 
sale monthly  prices  obtained  weekly  from  the  files  of  the  Pacific  Rural  Press.  The  median  link  relative 
method  was  used. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA   POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


41 


Seasonal  Variations  in  Egg-Feed  Price  Eatio,  Petaluma,  and  in  Fresh  Extra 
Quotations,  San  Francisco 


/40 
130 

tzo 

HO 
IOO 
90 

ao 

70 


/ 

— - — .. 

____ 

/ 

'Egg   Fet 

>d    RaHt 

) 

S 

^< 

V. 

f        Fresh  Extra  Qt/ofaHons 

/ 

/ 

\  / 

/X 

f      \ 

\ 

N 

N( 

^ 

V 

\ 

^^_ 

/ 

S 

Fig.  16. — Eggs  produced  in  August,  September,  October,  November,  December 
and  January  purchase  relatively  more  feed  than  eggs  produced  during  the  remain- 
ing six  months  of  the  year.  When  the  egg-feed  ratio  is  high  the  price  of  extras 
is  low,  e.g.,  in  March,  whereas  the  reverse  is  true  in  November.  Data  from 
table  17,  p.  40. 


TABLE  18 

Poultry  Feeds:   Eelative  Wholesale  Prices  at  Petaluma,   1910-1925,  and 
Eggs:  Eelative  Wholesale  Prices  at  San  Francisco,  1910-1925 

1910-1914  =  100 


Year 

Relative 
feed  prices 

Relative 
egg  prices 

Year 

Relative 
feed  prices 

Relative 
egg  prices 

1910 

94.8 
100.4 
107.6 
99.2 
98.1 
102.7 
108.9 
166.8 

106.2 
96.4 
93.9 
98.9 

104.6 
97.1 
99.6 

125.3 

1918 

177.5 
177.3 
197.5 
121.2 
118.3 
124.9 
135.1 
147.4 

163.0 
172.4 
174.9 
128.1 
111.5 
114.3 
112.8 
125.0 

1911 

1919 

1912 

1920 

1913 

1921 

1914 

1922 

1915 

1923 

1916 

1924...  . 

1917 

1925 

Sources  of  data:  Weekly  wholesale  poultry  feed  quotations  were  obtained  from  the  Petaluma 
Weekly  Poultry  Journal.  The  arithmetic  mean  of  the  weekly  quotations  was  used  as  the  quotation 
for  each  month.  The  wholesale  price  of  100  pounds  of  feed  used  in  the  egg-feed  ratio  was  then  computed 
and  a  fixed  sum  for  mixing  and  grinding  the  feed  was  added.  The  wholesale  quotations  of  eggs  are  for 
the  San  Francisco  market. 


42 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


SOURCES   OF    CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    FEEDS 

California  poultry  men  are  users  of  large  amounts  of  raw  materials 
which  are  manufactured  into  eggs  and  poultry,  and  are  naturally 
interested  in  the  sources  of  supply  for  the  various  feeds  purchased. 


TABLE  19 

Poultry  Feeds:  Quantities  Sold  to  Poultrymen  in  California  by  Feed 

Concerns,   1925 


Amount 
(pounds) 

Per  cent  of 

total  feed 

listed 

Origin  of  feed 

Feed 

California 

Other  places 

(Ranges  of  estimate) 

50,868,683 
26,550,072 

•  17,684,995 

8,816,659 
9,501,516 

7,538,505 
7,157,300 
5,904,702 

5,877,776 
5,713,570 
4,968,010 
3,248,134 
2,909,867 

1,911,300 
1,748,800 
1,455,142 
827,550 
811,604 
351,500 
572,924 

30.9 
16  1 

10.7 

5.4 
58 

4  6 
4.3 
3.6 

3.6 
3.5 
3.0 
2  0 
1.8 

1.2 
1.1 
0.9 
0  5 
0.5 
0.2 
0.3 

0-15% 
10-60% 

0 

100% 
0-30% 

50-60% 
100% 
0-80% 

100% 
0-40% 
0-50% 
0-50% 
0 

100% 

0-10% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

70-100%  Middle  West 

Wheat 

40-70%  Utah,  Idaho,  Oregon,  Washington 

0-20%  Middle  West 
0-100%  Oregon,  Washington 

0-40%  Canada 
0-60%  Kansas 
0 

10-100%    Oregon,    Washington,    Utah,    Idaho, 

Milof 

Canada 
0-20%  Kansas 

40-50%  Oklahoma  and  Texas 
0 

Oats 

20-40%  Oregon,  Washington,  Utah  and  Idaho 

0-60%  Middle  West 
0 

Shell 

60-100%  Eastern 

Oil  cake  meal 

Kaffir 

0-100%  Orient 

0-100%  Oklahoma  and  Texas 

0-20%  Canada 

20-100%  Utah,  Idaho,  Oregon  and  Washington 
0 

90-100%  Eastern 

Milk 

0 

Grit 

0 

0 

Alfalfa  meal 

0 

164,418,609 

100.0 

Sources  of  data:    Data  furnished  to  author  by  several  California  feed  concerns. 

*  One  dealer  estimates  that  15  per  cent  of  the  corn  sold  by  his  firm  originated  in  the  Argentine. 

t  Includes  Egyptian  corn  (Brown  and  White  Dura). 

Data  furnished  the  author  by  various  concerns  in  California  give 
some  indication  concerning  the  sources  of  supply  of  concentrated 
feeds.  This  information  will  give  the  poultrymen  some  idea  as  to 
current  demands  for  various  feeds.  The  feeds  listed  below  have  been 
sold  to  California  poultrymen  during  the  year  1925.  In  explanation 
of  table  19,  it  will  be  noted  that  50,868,683  pounds  of  corn,  or'  30.9 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY  43 

per  cent  of  the  total  amount  of  feed  sold,  have  been  bought  by  Cali- 
fornia poultrymen.  The  highest  amount  originating  in  California 
was  15  per  cent.  Estimates  of  the  percentage  of  corn  coming  from 
the  Middle  West  ranged  from  70  to  100  per  cent. 

Table  19  indicates  rather  a  serious  problem  to  the  poultry  industry 
of  the  state.  On  the  most  conservative  basis  it  is  estimated  that  Cali- 
fornia imports  over  half  the  poultry  feeds  sold  within  the  state.  It 
is  hoped  that  by  some  method  California  farmers  growing  feed  and 
poultrymen  buying  feed  can  be  brought  to  a  realization  of  the  feed 
needs  of  the  poultry  industry  of  the  state.  Feedstuffs  are  relatively 
bulky  and  heavy,  hence  the  freight  rates  per  pound  are  necessarily 
high.  The  poultryman  in  many  instances  is  paying  freight  on  the 
raw  material  in  the  shape  of  feedstuffs  and  is  paying  freight  on  the 
manufactured  product  exported  from  the  state. 


PRICE    RELATIONSHIPS    BETWEEN    GRADES    OF    EGGS 

Ratios  between  the  quotations  of  pullet  and  extra  eggs  on  the 
San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  markets. — Both  pullet  and  extra  eggs 
have  been  quoted  regularly  in  San  Francisco  since  1912,  and  in  Los 
Angeles  since  January  1,  1917.  Comparisons  between  these  two  grades 
have  been  made  by  the  use  of  a  percentage  relationship. 

The  following  will  illustrate  the  method  of  obtaining  the  ratio  used 
in  this  study.  Net  quotations  on  the  Los  Angeles  market,  January  3, 
1917,  were :  Pullets  $0.34,  Extras  $0.38,  making  the  ratio  34/38,  or 
89.47  per  cent.  One  net  quotation  for  both  pullets  and  extras  was 
obtained  on  the  same  day  during  every  week  of  this  entire  period,  and 
the  average  (arithmetic  mean)  of  the  four  or  five  ratios  obtained  for 
each  month  was  then  taken  as  the  average  for  that  month. 

That  there  is  not  a  constant  relationship  between  these  quotations 
can  be  seen  from  table  20,  p.  45.  The  ratios  on  the  San  Francisco 
market  have  ranged  from  66.2  per  cent  (October  19,  1922)  to  100 
per  cent  (October  29,  1913,  February  17,  1915),  and  at  Los  Angeles 
from  66.3  per  cent  (October  12,  1925)  to  100  per  cent  (May  1,  1918). 

On  account  of  the  standardization  in  grades,  the  demand  for 
pullets  is  at  times  comparatively  inelastic,  a  situation  caused  by  the 
requirements  of  chain  stores,  markets,  and  restaurants. 

The  average  (arithmetic  mean)  of  the  731  ratios  in  the  San 
Francisco  study  and  of  the  469  for  Los  Angeles  are  approximately 
the  same  (87  per  cent). 


44 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


The  trend  for  San  Francisco  is  slightly  downward  from  1912  to 
1925.  During  the  period  1916-1920  the  ratio  was  especially  high,  but 
this  might  have  been  expected  since  certain  concerns  undoubtedly 
shifted  their  demand  from  extras  to  pullets  during  periods  of  rela- 
tively high  prices.     Since  1922,  however,  the  tendency  has  been  to 

Percentage  Relationship  Between  the  Net  Quotations  of  Pullet  and  Extra 

Eggs  on  the  Los  Angeles  Market,  1917-1926 
Per  Cen-r 

too 


95 


90 


65 


80 


75 


70 


Putfe-h  Ex 

<-ra  Pa 

ft/b^^i 

1         ( 

i 

tz 

Montr 

i  Mow 

ig  Ave 

^1 

1 — ^ 

- 

n ,    i 

^  3  3  3  4  ■*  ^ 


^  3  ■*  ^ 


^    5 

^  3 


^>     *^     -S     "S     ^$ 


^     c 
5    £ 


1917 


19(9        f9l9         I9Z0     J9ZI       I9ZZ       I9Z3       S9Z4       /9Z5 


Fig.  17. — A  pronounced  seasonal  variation  can  be  seen  in  the  relationship 
between  the  prices  of  pullet  and  extra  eggs.  Pullet  eggs  are  usually  relatively 
higher  during  the  first  months  of  the  year  and  lower  during  the  fall  months. 
There  has  been  a  tendency  during  the  entire  period  for  pullet  eggs  to  be  relatively 
lower  than  extras.  Data  based  on  calculations  from  table  111,  p.  163,  and  table 
113,  p.  165. 


increase  the  ratio.     The  trend  in  the  Los  Angeles  ratio  has  also  been 
downward. 

There  is  a  considerable  fluctuation  from  day  to  day  and  from  week 
to  week,  and  it  is  evident  that  there  can  be  no  wide  variation  in  the 
nutritive  value  of  the  two  grades  within  such  a  short  period. 

Seasonal  variation. — There  is  a  pronounced  seasonal  variation  in 
the  relationship,  as  can  be  seen  from  table  20,  p.  45  and  figure  18. 
January  stands  out  as  the  month  of  high  relative  value  while  October 
is  low. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


45 


Seasonal  Variation  in  Percentage  Relationship  Between  Pullet  and  Extra 
Quotations,  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco 


Fig.  18. — The  data  used  in  connection  with  the  chart  are  the  percentage 
relationships  between  the  prices  of  extra  and  pullet  eggs.  The  normal  ratio  (rep- 
resented by  100  per  cent  or  unit  y)  is  high  during  the  first  months  of  the  year. 
The  same  general  seasonal  variation  in  the  relationship  between  pullet  and  extra 
eggs  is  evident  in  Los  Angeles  as  in  San  Francisco.  Although  receipts  are  not 
segregated,  available  data  point  to  low  comparative  receipts  of  pullets  during  the 
first  months  of  the  year  and  high  receipts  in  the  fall.     Data  from  table  20,  p.  45. 


TABLE  20 

Eggs:  Seasonal  Variation  in  the  Percentage  Relationships  of  Pullet 

Quotations,  to  Extra  Quotations,  San  Francisco,  1912-1925, 

Los  Angeles,  1917-1925 


Month 

San  Francisco 

Los  Angeles 

Month 

San  Francisco 

Los  Angeles 

105.8 
104.6 
103.8 
102.9 
101.5 
101.6 

106.6 
105.9 
102.2 
102.9 
100.9 
102.0 

July 

99.9 
98.0 
95.8 
91.5 
93.7 
100.9 

100.1 

August 

99.9 

September 

92.2 

October 

91.9 

November 

93.5 

December 

101.9 

Note. — From  the  above  table  it  will  be  seen  that  if  the  average  monthly  relationship  between  the 
prices  of  pullet  and  extra  eggs  equals  100,  in  January  the  San  Francisco  index  is  105.8  or  5.8  per  cent 
higher  than  the  average;  whereas  in  October  the  relationship  is  91.5  or  8.5  per  cent  below  the  average 
relationship.     Pullet  eggs  are  therefore  relatively  high  in  January  and  low  in  October. 

Source  of  data:  Computations  of  the  percentage  relationship  between  the  prices  of  pullet  and  extra 
eggs  were  made  for  Wednesdays  of  each  week  by  the  author.  The  arithmetic  mean  of  the  Wednesday 
percentage  relationship  for  each  month  was  then  taken  as  the  percentage  relationship  for  the  particu- 
lar month  involved.  The  seasonal  variations  were  then  computed  from  these  monthly  relationships 
by  the  link  relative  method. 

Data  for  Los  Angeles  (computed  from  1917-1925)  evidence  the 
same  general  seasonal  variation  as  does  San  Francisco,  except  that  the 
variations  from  March  to  June  are  comparatively  nothing  and  the 
decline  in  the  ratio  from  August  to  September  is  more  abrupt  than  is 
the  case  on  the  San  Francisco  market. 


46 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Percentage  Eelationship  Between  Pullet  and  Extra  Quotations    San 
Per  Cen-t-  Francisco,  1912-1925;  Los  Angeles,  1917-1925 

94 
9Z 


90 
88 
86 
84- 
8Z 


Son 

Francisco   Rf/a-hton 

V 

\ 

\    < 

fc- — Los  Ange/e? 

Sec 

y/ar 

Tret 

id 

\ 

7^ 

s.f: 

Rek 

ft/or 

s-^ 

\\ 

\ 

/ 

\/ 

1 

5 
5 

K 

1 

Fig.  19. — A  comparison  between  the  relationship  of  pullet  to  extra  eggs  in 
Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  shows  plainly  that  the  relationship  does  not  vary 
greatly  as  between  the  two  markets.  During  the  period  of  relatively  high  prices 
the  relationship  was  high.  In  the  comparatively  unfavorable  years  pullet  eggs 
have  apparently  been  worth  less.  The  general  trend  in  the  relationship  on  the 
San  Francisco  market,  has  been  downward.*  Data  based  on  calculations,  tables 
111,  112,  113,  114,  pp.  163-165. 


Percentage  Eelationship  Between  the  Net  Quotations  of  Pullet  and  Extra 
n     ^   u  Eggs  on  the  San  Francisco  Market,  1912-1926 


JOO 
95 
90 
85 
BO 
75 


/ 

-Pullei 

Exti 

-a    Ra 

<-io 

\ 

/u 

V 

\ 

n 

\ 

1 

SflP-A 

'on+h 

bovine 

■  Aven 

'9s    ' 

\ 

r —   - 

1      -     - 

-^    C     -?>    C"     -$\    c;     -5^    c:     ^?\    c     -3*    c     -^    cj 


^    c     -^    Cg 


^'M'-M^'^^^M-^^'MSfl 


Z9/2        /9I3        1914-       J9I5       1910        19/7       f9IS 


I9ZO       !9Zt        I9ZZ      I9Z3       I9Z4      I9Z5 


Fig.  20. — The  percentage  represents  the  percentage  relationship  between  the 
wholesale  quotations  of  pullet  and  extra  eggs.  Pullets  are  low  in  price  when 
compared  to  extras  during  the  months  of  August  to  November,  inclusive.  With 
only  slight  variations,  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  follow  the  same  trend. 
The  ratio  has  been  consistently  lower,  however,  for  September  in  Los  Angeles. 
During  the  five  years  1921-1925  there  has  been  a  pronounced  decline  in  the  ratio 
during  September  and  October.  Data  based  upon  table  112,  p.  164,  and  table  114, 
p.  165. 


*  The  equation  for  the  line  of  trend  is  y  =  87.12  —  .108  x. 


[BuL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  47 


PER  CAPITA  YEARLY  CONSUMPTION  OF   EGGS* 

United  States. — In  1918-19  the  United  States  Department  of 
Labor,  through  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  working  in  cooperation 
with  the  National  War  Labor  Board,  made  an  investigation  into  the 
cost  of  living  in  industrial  centers  of  the  United  States.  This  covered 
white  families  in  92  cities  or  localities  in  42  states.  According  to 
estimates  obtained,  the  apparent  per  capita  consumption  of  eggs  in 
the  United  States  (industrial  centers)  amounted  to  12.49  dozens.  It 
is  of  interest  to  note  that  California's  largest  markets,  California  and 
the  North  Atlantic  States,  claimed  the  highest  per  capita  consump- 
tion. The  western  states  led  the  entire  country  with  14.59  dozens,  two 
dozens  more  than  the  average  for  the  country  as  a  whole.  The  North 
Atlantic  States-  followed  with  13.90  dozens.  For  the  other  sections, 
the  per  capita  consumption  was  as  follows: 

South  Atlantic  States 11.90  dozens 

South  Central  States 11.76  dozens 

North  Central  States 10.75  dozens 

The  states  producing  the  largest  total  surplus  of  eggs,  and  having 
the  lowest  prices,  apparently  consumed  the  smallest  quantities  of  eggs. 
This  may  be  due  to  the  larger  consumption  of  cereal  products  (bread, 
etc.)  and  potatoes  in  the  Central  States. 

The  per  capita  consumption  of  eggs  in  the  rural  districts  is  con- 
siderably larger  than  that  of  the  industrial  centers.  Investigations  by 
the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  during  1913-19141 
indicated  that  the  per  capita  annual  consumption  of  800  northern 
rural  families  was  33.6  dozens,  while  similar  data  from  150  southern 
families  showed  it  to  be  30.8  dozens. 

Consumption  of  eggs  in  the  United  States  compared  with  other 
countries. — British  authorities!  have  estimated  the  per  capita  con- 
sumption of  eggs  in  certain  countries  of  the  world  to  be  as  follows : 

Canada 313 

Belgium 213 

United  States 180 

France 133 

Great  Britain 110 

Sweden 86 

Denmark 75 

Norway 61 

*  U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1924,  p.  1127. 

t  U.  S.  D.  A.  Bui.  410,  Value  to  Farm  Families  of  Food,  Fuel  and  use  of 
House. 

t  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries:  Report  on  egg  marketing  in  England 
and  Wales,  p.  12,  London,  1926. 


48  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Egg  products. — Eggs  have  many  varied  uses,  some  of  the  more 
important  being : 

1.  Directly,  as  human  food  (shell  eggs). 

2.  In  baking  (shell,  frozen,  and  dried  eggs). 

3.  In  confectionery    (principally  egg  albumen). 

4.  In  the  manufacture  of  mayonnaise  dressing  (principally  egg 

yolks). 

5.  In  photography  (egg  albumen). 

6.  In  tanning  (certain  classes  of  eggs  unfit  for  food). 

7.  In  stock  and  poultry  feeds   (certain  classes  of  decomposed 

eggs  unfit  for  human  food). 

8.  In  fertilizers  (any  bad  eggs). 

9.  In  the  manufacture  of  dyes  (egg  albumen). 

10.  In  the  manufacture  of  certain  textiles  (albumen). 

11.  In  the  manufacture  of  paints  and  varnishes  (albumen). 

12.  In  pharmaceutical  preparations  (albumen). 

13.  In  clarifying  wines  and  spirituous  liquors  (albumen). 

14.  In  sizing  paper  (albumen). 

15.  In  the  manufacture  of  glue  and  adhesive  (albumen). 

16.  In  the  manufacture  of  artificial  ivory  (albumen). 

17.  In  the  manufacture  of  ice    cream,    especially    French    ice 

cream  (shell  and  dried  or  powdered  eggs). 

18.  In  the  manufacture  of  soap    (Germany — yellow  of  rotten 

eggs). 

This  list  gives  an  idea  of  the  importance  of  products  other  than 
shell  eggs.     (For  egg  equivalents  see  table  116,  page  169.) 

The  U.  S.  Standards  and  grades  for  eggs  in  commercial  use.* — 
The  establishment  in  San  Francisco  and  Petaluma  of  a  Federal-State 
Inspection  service  on  eggs,  in  conjunction  with  the  use  of  the  tentative 
wholesale  grades  as  formulated  by  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  marks  a  distinct  advance 
in  the  marketing  of  this  product. 

The  wholesale  grades  as  used  today  are  the  result  of  a  careful  and 
intensive  study  of  poultry  production  and  marketing  conditions 
throughout  the  United  States  over  a  period  of  years.  They  have  grown 
out  of  the  results  of  practical  experience,  and  as  at  present  constituted, 
are  designed  for  nation-wide  application.  They  are  of  a  nature  to 
lend  themselves  to  refrigerator  as  well  as  fresh  grades,  and  conse- 
quently will  eventually  bring  about  a  common  standard  that  will  be 
understood  wherever  eggs  are  bought  and  sold  in  the  United  States. 


*  Courtesy  of  Henry  G.  F.  Hamann,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  U.  S.  D.  A. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  49 

This  common  standard  is  the  thing  that  is  at  present  lacking. 
Eggs  bought  or  sold  on  one  market  under  certain  trade  names,  are 
resold  on  some  other  market  under  a  name  which  may  be  similar  to 
the  first  but  interpreted  differently.  The  term  " Extra  first"  in 
Boston  may  also  be  used  in  New  York  or  San  Francisco,  but  each  of 
these  markets  places  a  different  construction  on  the  term,  relative  to 
the  eggs  in  question.  This  lack  of  a  common  terminology  has  com- 
plicated the  entire  economic  scheme  of  marketing  this  product. 

The  grades  used  are  based  on  the  U.  S.  standards  of  quality  for 
individual  eggs,  which  were  accepted  by  representative  members  of 
the  trade  in  the  United  States  at  Chicago  on  January  19,  1925.  With 
a  thorough  understanding  of  the  points  considered  in  determining  the 
interior  quality  of  an  egg  as  presented  in  these  standards,  no  real 
difficulty  should  be  experienced  in  the  interpretation  of  the  various 
grades. 

The  U.  S.  standards  of  quality  for  individual  eggs,  as  well  as  the 
tentative  wholesale  grades  are  presented  in  tables  21  and  22,  and  show 
the  seven  standard  types  or  kinds,  from  which  the  grades  have  been 
developed.  The  four  standard  qualities  for  clean  sound  shell  eggs  are 
named — U.  S.  Special,  U.  S.  Extra,  U.  S.  Standard,  and  U.  S.  Trade. 
The  two  standard  qualities  of  stained  or  dirty  shelled  eggs  are  named 
U.  S.  Standard  Dirty  and  U.  S.  Trade  Dirty.  Those  which  are  checked 
or  cracked  are  named  U.  S.  Checks  or  Cracks. 

Since  the  U.  S.  Standards  of  quality  relate  to  the  condition  of  the 
shell  as  well  as  to  the  interior  quality,  color,  size,  and  weight  are  not 
considered  factors  of  quality,  but  of  grade.  Color  of  shell  also  is 
considered  as  a  factor  in  establishing  various  color  classes  within  the 
grades. 


COMMERCIAL    HATCHERIES    IN    CALIFORNIA 

There  were  on  January  1,  1926,  two  hundred  sixty-two  commercial 
hatcheries,  each  with  a  capacity  of  1000  eggs  or  over,  in  37  different 
counties  of  the  state.  One  hundred  thirty-five  of  these  in  twelve 
different  counties  are  accredited.  An  accredited  hatchery  is  one 
which  follows  certain  rules  and  regulations  prescribed  by  a  Farm 
Bureau  Accredited  Hatchery  Project.  These  include  a  rigid  inspec- 
tion of  stock  with  reference  to  health  and  vigor,  by  persons  over  which 
the  breeder  has  no  control,  and  in  addition  conformation  to  certain 
standards  which  are  set  up  with  respect  to  the  pedigree  of  the  males 
used. 


50 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


O 


M 

03 

6 
i- 

O 

M 

O 

II 

ver  %  in.; 
bubbly  or 
obile. 

_>>  _3 

■3 

3 
c 

3 

C 
0 

c 

a 

ent    may 
ly  visible 
0      blood 

-3 
O 

QQ 

O     CP     ™ 

3   S  -5 

a  S  si 

0    3  ^ 

0    0    S 
<»  "°    >> 

•°    0?- 

0?  s  £ 

0) 

o?! 

3 
0 

> 

7 

3     U     3     M 

>>       S,  Sj        s 

5            ©     y           "S 

5            0)   ^    XI     » 

P 

O 

s 

s 

P 

Q 

>> 

5 

3 
X5 

>> 

a   ° 
^  3   0 

£1  ."3 

"a  ^3 

3 
0 
S 

_>. 
13 

c 
a 

0 
c 
& 
a 

>>    «   -3 

03   3     O 
3^0 

K     00   •-; 

0 

T3 

■5 

t-i    ■-!    r> 

.      O     0     3 

^   >>  13 

03 

O       . 
0     3 

3 

(II 

S    S    3    M 

QQ 

P 

a    3 

_C3      to 

0?  Si 

03     > 

c 
u 

> 

o 

,1      £  «  3  ^ 

^           o>  -Q  X3    « 

a 

§ 

S 

^ 

Q 

s 

3 

>> 

1        ~ 

1       1 

5,3 

3 
'8 

E 

>>   a; 

IS 
.2 

3 
c3 

0 

73    T3 

..-Q    2 

^     03    *= 

n   S  £ 
0        -u 

> 

X3    _4J 

t- 
_> 

c 

+=    > 

S3 

3.    b£ 
0  ;3 
"3    « 
>    0 

0   -3 

o 

CO 
QQ 

0    s 
3     3 
*     g 

3 

>»   3 

03     3 

c 
0 

0 

P 

BE 

S 

PC 

P 

•  -  s- 
3  ° 
—  >. 

^\  3  0 
.   -°  « 
0   3  -2 

>  ^   § 
0   a)   s 

S  "°   >> 
rt   s   £ 

o3     C    t« 

_>.    3 

^ 

t: 

>>  £  ^ 

o3 
3 

a 

.3 

o 
d 

0 

03 
CO 

p 

— 
C 

c 

a 

c 
a 
9 

3 

"3  J4 

3  a 

X!    _0) 

3 

>>! 

03     > 

3 
0 
S 
_>> 
13 
s 
vi 

IT 
0 
3 
0 

e 

a 

a 
is 

1 

> 

2  3    2 

^'> 

2-^o- 

>>        §    S   G    3 

r1        &  0         3 

0        ^0        > 
,|         >    0  1  i 

?            «   X3    X3     m 

3 
2 

c 

§ 

S 

^ 

0 

'3 
0 
a 

73 

1             "J 

1     1 

r2 

3 

>>   0' 

sS 

.2 

co 

03 

3 
03 

T 

c 

,2        3 
-J  s 

(0    *"      CU 

a.    •*>  -u 

1 

E 
fc. 

00 
QQ 

P 

c 

or 

c 

K 

a 

.2  «l 

3 

8 

a 
c 

cr 

a 

a. 

5^ 

3-    bU 
O   SJ 
"3    v 
>    0 

0    J2 

5 

s 

« 

Q 

3 
0 

a 

0 

03 

ao     tH° 

i 

13 
> 

« 

t 

00     <3 

3 

0 

-3 

w 

: 

'.2 

a 

0 

co 

c 

or 

s  2 

0> 

£     • 

P 

C 

0: 

a. 

00  ." 

J2 

03 

'M     3 

>   © 

0  s 

G 

N 

a 

— 

£ 

"3 

3 

a 

0 

13 

a; 

-r 

to   J2 

>i 

0 

a 

- 

<D     3 

1 

b 

co 

—     M 

03 

_0 

co 

c 

,       0 
O     Jl 

-5 

0> 

Jj 

3    . 

P 

c 

S 

3    a; 

>> 

03 

5 

3 

.2     3 
>     0 

0  a 
$5 

>> 

3 

oo 
O 
o 

0 

£ 

a 

s 

3 

03 

"a 

si 

3 

0 
0 

is 

3  2 

03-3 


3  & 

^3 

3J2 


0  0 


3  co 
o  • 
op 
3-3 
3  0 

-3  3- 


•§"8 
03 .2 

t.  03 

3X2 


<^  o 

°5 

3S 
073 
Sc 

03 "« 

a  0 
P>»S 

D^3 

a3c£iH 

to"     . 

§,0=0 
£73  P 


co'    O 

p"  I 
15 

3    «:" 

3   H  3 

8  og 

td       ^3 

2  -Jo 

I  f.s 

5r_  -°  be 

<^ 

03   -Q  a 
£     °CO 

3  0 
Z  ^  0 


0^  0 

js_2  a 
mm  £ 
m_  a 

M  03 

t-  0-5 

03   o 

;s  0  c 

3&^ 

c3t3  3 
3^3 

S3  0  03 
to  0  ° 

0  !*^ 
0   «.S 

H2  0 

00 
•  00 
>>0 


01     co   g 

"3     03 

§  as 


H     -J3    0 

'03   £-3 

^3^ 
„_  •«  00 
3  ^  ^ 

CD       O)    03 

0   ,3  1-3 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


51 


CP 

o 

a 

d 
jp 

3 

CD 

CO 

cS 
o 

Ja 

cS 

a 
-a 

CP 

Is 
_o 

13 

co 
M 

hO 

CP 

"o 

o> 

a 

c 

a 
a 

1   S 

03 

o 

t-q 

CM  CM  CO  CO 

CO  CO  ^  ^# 

Tf 

, 

US  IQ 

Oi  Oi  Oi  Oi 

•<*< 

* 

«o 

»c 

Oi                             Oi 

t    CO 

O  hC 

s  ^ 
'3tj 

U.S. 
Trade 
Dirties 

or 
Better 

•*lfl*N 

Oi  00  t^  CO 
i-H  CM  CO 

U.  S. 
Stand- 
ard 
Dirties 

oooio^ 

'33  a 
"3 

U.S. 
Trade 
Dirties 

or 
Better 

CN  CM  CM  CM 

CM  <M  ■*  Tt< 

U.  S. 
Stand- 
ard 
Dirties 

„,.„, 

•»j<  -*t<  CO  CO 

U.S. 
Checks 

or 
Cracks 

lf)iO>OKS 

CD  CD  CD  CO 

t^t^i>-  t~ 

Oi    Oi    Oi    Oi 

t^     t^     i> 

t^ 

00                           : 

U.S. 
Trades 

U5iOlO>0 

Oi  Oi  Oi  Oi 

U.S. 
Trade 
Dirties 

or 
Better 

Mini- 
mum 
per- 
centage 

Balance 
Balance 
Balance 
Balance 

50% 
or  more 

U.S. 

Trade 
Dirties 

U.  S. 
Standard 
Dirties 

or 
Better 

Mini- 
mum 
per- 
centage 

Balance 
Balance 
Balance 
Balance 

oooo 

00         t-         CD         lO 

U.S. 
Trades 

or 
Better 

Mini- 
mum 
per- 
centage 

Balance 
Balance 
Balance 
Balance 

oooo 

00  I>-  CD  lO 

U.  S. 

Standards 

or 

Better 

Mini- 
mum 
per- 
centage 

Balance 
Balance 
Balance 
Balance 

Balance 
Balance 
Balance 
Balance 

oooo 
oo  r^  cd  ko 

U.S. 
Extras 

or 
Better 

Mini- 
mum 
per- 
centage 

oooo 

rH  C^l  C<1  CO 

oooo 

OO  C~~  CD  lO 

Pa 

in 

Mini- 
mum 
per- 
centage 

OOOO 
OO  t-  CO  lO 

>> 

a 

u 
o 

•2  ® 

C   si 

"s.a 

CP 

Q 

I 

-- 
"i. 

■- 
"I 

c 

a 

.3 

'2 
P 

Reasonably  uniform 

Reasonably  uniform 

Reasonably  uniform 

Reasonably  uniform 

c 

2 

7 

> 

a 

a 

- 

c 

e  e 

3    8 
>    > 

'  d  r- 

i 
> 

! 

1 

I 

May  be  greatly  variable.. 
May  be  greatly  variable.. 
May  be  greatly  variable.. 
May  be  greatly  variable.. 

> 
a 

> 

a 

a 

a 
% 

a 

3 

e 

1 

a 

IS 

a 

T 

C 

> 

a 

■> 

May  be  greatly  variable.. 
May  be  greatly  variable. . 

,2 

15 

J  <n 

O 
DQ 

P 

■i 
r 
"t 

c 
£ 

u 
c 

% 

a 

» 

c 

/  'E 
c 

-  : 
y 

<  o 
>"  C 

v 

y 

■J 
\ 

,  "t 
■  a 
-  : 
y 

1  c 
>'  C 

;iz 

!« 

•/. 

;  '5 

)   CO 

-  0, 

X 

'•>  6 

i  DQ 

>P 

U.  S.  No.  1  Extras 

U.  S.  No.  2  Extras 

U.  S.  No.  3  Extras 

U.  S.  No.  4  Extras 

0 
! 

C 

c 

7 

c 

y 

y 

a 

i    0 

- 

£ 

y 

e 

>'  c 
!z 

y 

it 

■J.     7 

-St 

cm  j- 

1   S3   a 

— - 

3  C  £ 
oS  i 

xy 

ICO  ^ 

'  d  : 
'  x  y 

5p"t 

i 

! 

! 

U.  S.  No.  1  Trades 

U.  S.  No.  2  Trades 

U.  S.  No.  3  Trades 

U.  S.  No.  4  Trades 

t3 

d 

a 

d 

h 

P 

1 
g9 

CM 

H 
p 

3 
— 
a 

CO 

P 

3 
-a 

c 

e3 

h 
p 

U.  S.  Trade  Dirties 

U.  S.  Checks  or  Cracks 

52 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


The  total  egg  capacity  of  the  larger  hatcheries  in  the  state  is 
7,781,342.  The  capacity  of  those  accredited  is  3,414,000  or  43  per  cent 
of  the  total.  Since  small  hatcheries  were  not  listed,  it  is  estimated* 
that  the  total  capacity  of  the  state  is  approximately  8,000,000,  and  as 

Number  and  Capacity  of  Commercial  Hatcheries,  California,  1926 


Fig.  20. — a.  Commercial  hatcheries  are  found  in  37  different  counties  in  the 
state.     Each  dot  represents  one  hatchery. 

6.  An  incubator  capacity  of  50,000  eggs  in  the  state  is  represented  by  each 
dot.  Sonoma  County  far  outranks  all  other  counties  in  the  state  with  an  incubator 
capacity  of  3,489,000,  or  over  40  per  cent  of  the  capacity  of  the  entire  state.  Los 
Angeles  County  ranks  second  with  slightly  over  900,000  egg  capacity,  followed  by 
Santa  Clara  with  750,000. 

Data  from  table  23,  p.  53. 


two  or  three  chicks  are  sold  during  the  year  for  each  egg  capacity,  it 
will  be  readily  seen  that  this  business  in  California  has  reached  large 
proportions.  It  is  felt  by  the  author  that  regular  reports,  on  hatchings, 
by  the  hatcheries  would  prove  invaluable  in  judging  the  industry's 
future. 


*  Estimate   by   E.   B.   Easson,    Specialist   in  Agricultural   Extension,    Poultry 
(resigned). 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


53 


TABLE  23 

Hatcheries:  Number  and  Capacity  in  California,  1926. 
Hatchery  Projects 


Accredited 


County 

Hatcheries,  1926 

Egg  capacity  of 

incubators  one 

filling 

Accredited 

hatchery  project 

in  county 

13 
3 
1 
3 
3 

14 
6 
3 
2 
2 

29 
5 
2 
2 
6 
3 
5 

17 
3 
7 
3 
2 
6 

12 

14 
5 
1 
3 
9 
5 
1 

31 

24 
2 
8 
4 
3 

278,000 

23,000 

6,000 

50,400 

4,200 

58,500 

122,000 

48,000 

16,000 

22,760 

907,500 

155,000 

118,640 

55,000 

50,800 

7,500 

75,000 

131,080 

29,000 

132,500 

165,000 

23,000 

120,500 

233,859 

108,000 

41,160 

125,000 

14,712 

750,000 

130,000 

8,000 

3,489,000 

222,840 

19,600 

51,400 

34,000 

5,200 

Yes 

Butte '. 

No 

No 

No 

El  Dorado 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Madera 

No 
Yes 

No 

Merced 

No 

No 

Napa 

Yes 

Yes 

Placer 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Santa  Barbara 

No 

Santa  Clara 

No 

Yes 

Solano 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Sutter 

No 

Tehama 

No 

Tulare 

No 

No 

Total 

262 

7,781,342 

Number  of  counties  having  accredited  hatcheries 12 

Number  of  hatcheries  accredited 135 

Capacity  of  hatcheries  accredited 3,414,010 

Per  cent  of  total  hatchery  capacity  accredited 43% 

Source  of  data:  Compilations  furnished  author  by  R.  B.  Easson,  Specialist  in  Agricultural  Extension, 
Poultry.    (Resigned). 


54  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


RECEIPTS  OF   EGGS 

San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles. — Since  1891  there  lias  been  a 
steady  increase  in  the  receipts  of  eggs  on  the  San  Francisco  market. 
The  average  yearly  receipts  1891-1895  totaled  166,059  cases,  while 
the  average  for  1921-1925  was  802,133  cases.  The  latter  figure  was 
somewhat  greater  than  that  for  many  of  the  larger  egg  markets  of 
the  country  (fig.  26).  The  peak  was  reached  in  1923  with  a  total  of 
854,989  cases.  During  1924  and  1925,  there  was  a  decided  decrease, 
due  perhaps  not  to  a  decrease  in  production  or  consumption  but  to 
the  tendency  to  ship  directly  from  the  centers  of  production  to  those 
of  consumption.  This  has  been  the  case  especially  since  the  develop- 
ment of  processing  and  storage  facilities  at  the  production  centers. 
Though  San  Francisco  is  becoming  of  less  importance  as  a  shipping 
point,  the  receipts  there  give  rather  illuminating  evidence  on  the 
apparent  progress  that  has  been  made  in  the  industry  of  the  state. 
Comparisons  between  three  five-year  periods,  1901-1905,  1910-1914, 
and  1921-1925  (fig.  24)  point  to  a  pronounced  tendency  to  a  more 
even  distribution  of  receipts  throughout  the  year,  though  they  con- 
tinue larger  in  spring  and  smaller  in  fall  and  winter.  This  probably 
has  meant  an  increase  in  returns  to  the  shippers  as  the  increase  has 
occurred  during  the  period  of  relatively  higher  prices — September, 
October,  November,  December,  and  January.  The  more  even  distribu- 
tion throughout  the  season  has  tended  to  raise  prices  slightly  (rela- 
tively) during  the  months  of  heavy  production.  The  development 
of  cold  storage  facilities  at  production  centers  and  direct  shipments 
have  also  had  an  effect  on  San  Francisco  receipt  distribution. 

Since  the  pioneer  days  of  the  forties  and  fifties,  California  has 
received  eggs  from  other  states  and  foreign  countries.  At  first  they 
came  largely  from  the  New  England  and  Middle  Atlantic  States  and 
even  from  China.    Since  the  fifties,  Oregon  has  shipped  to  California. 

At  the  time  of  the  opening  of  the  transcontinental  railroad,  dire 
predictions  were  made  as  to  the  future  of  California's  egg  industry 
and  immediately  after  the  railroad 's  completion,  shipments  were  made 
from  middle  western  points.  The  data  with  reference  to  the  volume 
of  receipts  from  eastern  points  were  most  fragmentary  until  com- 
paratively recent  years. 

During  1884,  2,980,254  dozen  eggs  were  received  at  San  Francisco, 
of  which  1,356,250  dozens,  or  45.5  per  cent,  were  shipped  from  out- 
side the  state  over  the  Central  Pacific  Railroad.*    In  1901  the  volume 


*  Pacific  Eural  Press,  31:32,  1886. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


r)f) 


of  eastern  shipments  had  been  decreased  materially,  as  the  reports  for 
that  year  show  that  of  10,112,010  dozen  eggs  arriving  at  San  Francisco 
1,779,630  dozens,  or  17.6  per  cent,  arrived  from  eastern  points.*  Eggs 
from  out-of-state  points  are  still  arriving  on  the  San  Francisco  market, 
although  California  has  swung  into  the  position  of  an  exporter  during 
the  past  two  decades.     During  1925  shipments  from  outside  states 

TABLE  24 
Monthly  Eeceipts  of  Eggs  by  States  of  Origin,  San  Francisco,  1925 

(Cases) 


States 

Jan. 

Feb. 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

52,060 

46,855 

72,649 

79,174 

63,769 

72,049 

62,489 

64 

1,232 

448 

1,406 

798 
400 

1,044 

75 
137 

380 

2,744 

4,404 

2,896 
240 
566 

3,915 

6,237 

Utah 

719 

497 

622 

3,636 

Total 

53,159 

57,598 
64,855 

47,067 
56,200 
59,965 

76,625 
80,596 
94,610 

84,523 
82,276 
96,950 

68,877 
79,345 
86,649 

77,784 
74,920 
91,874 

73,470 

1924 

72,483 

1923 

70,077 

States 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

Per  cent 
of  total 

54,803 

50,699 

43,783 

41,213 

46,918 

686,461 

64 

6,306 

800 

402 

305 

37,348 

240 

10,780 

91.9 

271 

400 

18 

423 

34 

200 

450 

.8 

.1 

384 

25 
2,454 

205 
2,101 

6,329 

2,417 

3,334 

5.0 

Utah 

1,799 

430 

627 

1,884 

1.4 

Total    . 

63,620 
57,109 
61,692 

53,923 
50,331 
54,475 

47,581 
50,587 
58,129 

44,519 
45,861 
54,094 

51,558 
52,737 
61,719 

746,706 
760,043 

854,989 

1924  .     .. 

1923 

Source  of  data:    Mimeographed  sheets  issued  by  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
San  Francisco  Office,  1926. 


made  up  8.1  per  cent  of  the  receipts  at  San  Francisco  (60,345  cases 
of  the  746,706)  most  of  which  originated  in  states  west  of  the 
Mississippi  River,  particularly  in  Oregon  and  Washington.     These 


*  Pacific  Daiiy  Eeview,  1:1,1901. 


56 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


two  states  supplied  48,128  cases  of  the  60,345  originating  outside  the 
state  in  1925.  The  first  nine  months  of  1926  show  that  14.3  per  cent 
originated  outside  of  California  compared  with  7.5  per  cent  in  1925. 

TABLE  25 
Monthly  Beceipts  of  Eggs  by  States  of  Origin,  Los  Angeles,  1925 

(Cases) 


States 

Jan. 

Feb. 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

34,015 

37,118 

56,937 

63,061 

64,830 

46,913 

35,836 
762 

Arizona 

1,480 
10,196 

1,646 

15,131 

176 

400 

101 

3,959 

7,668 

8,930 

Illinois 

Kansas 

919 

960 

1,136 

Nebraska 

420 

New  York 

2 
3,304 

575 

130 

5,675 

4,823 
940 

3,334 
635 

6,276 

856 

Utah 

2 

583 
64 

685 

3,195 
501 

3,551 

1,524 

1,388 

Total,  1925 

36,114 

37,351 

61,543 

74,720 

83,796 

74,558 

59,555 

Total,  1924 

States 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

Per  cent 
of  total 

California 

27,261 

18,688 

23,889 

21,912 

25,998 
220 

456,468 

982 

3,526 

62,048 

176 

884 

3,015 

420 

2 

24,052 

2,756 

15,713 

5,018 

79.4 

Arizona 

.2 

.6 

8,666 

5,382 

304 

755 

956 

10.8 

880 

4 

.1 

.5 

141 

480 

1,560 

400 

1,597 
480 
301 

541 

990 

4.2 

Texas 

.5 

Utah  

1,138 
102 

918 
35 

3,446 
369 

2.7 

.9 

Total,  1925 

39,388 
26,995 

26,452 
11,777 

25,974 
16,556 

24,610 
18,063 

30,989 
9,306 

575,050 

Total,  1924 

Note. — These  figures  were  not  compiled  before  August  1,  1924. 

Source  of  data:    Mimeographed  sheet  issued  by  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
San  Francisco  Office,  1926. 


During  the  past  two  years  there  has  been  a  tendency  to  increase  the 
total  quantities  of  outside  eggs  on  the  San  Francisco  market,  most  of 
which  have  arrived  during  the  season  of  heaviest  receipts  (fig.  22) — a 
time  when  arrivals  are  heavy  on  the  markets  of  the  country. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


57 


5">t?3 

ST"3  o  p 

0 

-± 

p 

"  ®  s  M  ' 

< 

Jon. 

Hs 

OPa£,M 

o 

O  ^    »    O    'I 

War-. 

B 

Ifs?i 

p 
& 

^        o        ~ 

S  Ef.  ^^h*" 

May 

o 

3  ^^  B  B 

IS 

Ja/u 

>-*" 

"  o  o 

N 

*p 

_.      M      p      l-l    3 

CT3   tr"    j  to  ct- 

OS  o    co    £i  i—i 

Sep*. 

M 

Nov. 

CO 

to 

M  ur  o  v  o 

Jan. 

i-1 

so 

•.°-b  o  -< 

bo 

CO 

e 

Mar: 

so 

.+- 

l-i 

o 
ra 

O    _,  p_,         m. 
U  S   P     DO     § 

up 

May 
July 
Sept. 

<n 

©  ^,  5S  <*-  oo 

Nov. 

O 

05    B    n    c+ 

Jan. 

3 

Hi 

g 

05    <1    P    i-j 

hH  ^  P  ps  o 

Man 

0 

o 

o  ty  o  b  w 
H>a>  a  2  o 

May 

GO 

d 

s 

Jufy 

QQ 

Sept. 

0 

> 

Nov. 

Jan. 

Man 

£|p-g° 

B-S-aEB 

May 

°     <T>     02     O 

crS   ai  so 

Jufu 

Sept. 

©    B    ._. 

Nov. 

t?  B           © 

<rf-  3    o    —i 

o   «> 

3  £p  M 

Jan. 

to 

~M    ^3> 

ft 

o  2  «w 

tf 

Mar-. 

H,®««^ 

Moss 

5     8     8 


ft  ><5 


*"^« 

^ 

£ 

If 

*p 

rt^ 

> 

— 

% 

s. 

*? 

^ 

?8f 

IS 

II 

^ 

t* 

J 

5 

1 

t 
J  J 

3 

1 

/A 

^ 

^ 

*&^* 

J 

v. 

i 

\ 

& 

8 

s 

) 

5 

t 

"~^*m 

■^W, 

l/i 

<-< 

"^■"s 

-> 

< 
'' 

>s 

/  / 

\ 

/ 

1 
1 
1 

58 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Unfortunately,  Los  Angeles  returns  are  available  only  for  1925. 
The  receipts  from  out-of-state  points  at  Los  Angeles  were  larger  than 
at  San  Francisco,  amounting  to  118,592  cases  or  20.6  per  cent  of  a 
reported  total  of  575,050.  The  receipts  by  truck  at  Los  Angeles  offer 
obstacles  to  the  collection  of  statistics;  hence,  the  total  reported  is 
perhaps  too  low.  Idaho,  Oregon,  and  Utah  furnished  the  bulk  of  the 
out-of-state  receipts  at  Los  Angeles  during  1925  and  these  arrived 
chiefly  during  the  period  April- August. 

Egg  Eeceipts,  Los  Angeles,  1925,  1926 

Thousands 

of  Cases 
JOO 

90 

eo 

70 
GO 
50 
AO 
30 
ZO 


* 

' s 

_«•• 

\ 

■Tof 

al  A 

^ecre, 

pis 

*-*** 

/ 

f 

\ 
\ 

h 
h 

y 

\ 
\ 

fi 
ft 
II 

\ 

V 

\ 

II 
II 

\ 

V  \ 

i»*~ 

< 

\ 

/M/ 

t 

r 

\ 

% 

\ 

— . 

r"*~ 

Cat 

■zei'p- 
/-far 

n/a 

'r-otr 

,"'* 

•  ■•» 

r+* 

19Z6 


Fig.  23.— Los  Angeles  is  not  only  the  market  for  large  quantities  of  eggs  from 
the  Petaluma  area  but  in  addition  during  1925  received  large  shipments  from 
western  states,  notably  Idaho,  Utah,  and  Oregon.  The  larger  number  of  outside 
receipts  came  to  market  from  April  to  August  during  the  period  of  relatively  high 
production  and  low  prices.  The  statistics  are  undoubtedly  incomplete  as  receipts 
have  been  difficult  to  ascertain  in  Los  Angeles.  Data  from  table  25,  p.  56.  Current 
receipts  obtainable  in  Eeview  of  the  Butter  Market  at  San  Francisco,  issued  by 
U.  S.  D.  A.  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  San  Francisco. 


The  movement  of  eggs  from  the  states  west  of  the  Mississippi  will 
be  regulated  by  the  prices  obtainable  in  the  various  consumption 
centers  of  the  country.  It  will  be  rather  difficult  for  any  one  center 
to  be  far  out  of  line  in  prices  with  others  because  of  the  ease  of 
transportation.  This  fact  merely  emphasizes  the  necessity  of  produc- 
ing ' '  quality ' '  eggs  which  will  command  a  premium  over  the  ordinary 
product  found  on  the  market. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


59 


TABLE  26 
Monthly  Eeceipts  of  Eggs,  San  Francisco,  1910-1926 

(Thousand  cases— i.e.,  000  omitted) 
Month 


January 

February... 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November. 
December.. 


1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

27 

38 

46 

43 

32 

37 

38 

43 

42 

68 

62 

44 

50 

59 

56 

67 

75 

74 

89 

97 

80 

57 

81 

70 

66 

79 

79 

81 

58 

72 

89 

71 

74 

81 

87 

41 

46 

57 

50 

58 

62 

35 

42 

56 

65 

53 

49 

57 

42 

44 

56 

45 

40 

51 

57 

38 

25 

36 

36 

34 

31 

29 

38 

30 

36 

28 

30 

32 

27 

32 

24 

30 

29 

27 

34 

23 

25 

28 

29 

27 

25 

37 

27 

29 

475 

589 

635 

575 

610 

626 

584 

1917 

56 

77 
91 
93 
91 
77 
58 
41 
38 
38 
27 
32 


719 


Month 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

53 
81 
80 
93 
83 
71 
51 
39 
34 
27 
26 
29 

48 
59 
73 
83 
93 
80 
66 
62 
42 
32 
27 
33 

44 
55 
102 
114 
80 
76 
67 
55 
42 
43 
36 
43 

58 
71 
123 
109 
100 
79 
62 
57 
44 
40 
33 
35 

54 
59 
102 
118 
106 
81 
72 
63 
51 
45 
42 
45 

65 
60 
94 
97 
87 
93 
63 
61 
54 
58 
54 
62 

58 
56 
81 
82 
79 
75 
72 
57 
50 
51 
46 
53 

53 
47 
77 
85 
69 
78 
73 
61 
54 
48 
45 
52 

54 

52 

74 

75 

May 

72 

77 

July 

78 

56 

47 

49 

667 

698 

757 

811 

838 

855 

760 

747 

Source  of  data:  Compilations  by  author  based  upon  statistics  published  by  the  Pacific  Dairy 
Review,  San  Francisco,  during  January  of  each  year.  Current  statistics  are  published  monthly  in  the 
Weekly  Review  of  the  Butter  Market  at  San  Francisco,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 


60 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  27 

Eggs:   Seasonal  Variation  in  Eeceipts,  San  Francisco, 
1901-1905,   1910-1914,   1921-1925 


Month 

1901-1905 

1910-1914 

1921-1925 

January 

58.61 
105.28 
165.92 
166.90 
164.52 
141.28 
97.05 
93.72 
58.01 
47.41 
50.49 
50.80 

80.35 
115.75 
150.60 
140.44 
142.77 
100.45 
106.36 
106.27 
68.25 
68.19 
61.31 
59.22 

93.91 
89.30 
144.10 
146.46 
129.58 
121.17 
106.08 
91.99 
76.11 
68.14 
62.49 
70.66 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Average 

100.00 

100.00 

100  00 

Source  of  data:    Computations  by  the  author  based  upon  Table  26,  p. 
above  computations  is  the  link  relative  method. 


The  method  used  in  the 


Seasonal  Variation  of  Egg  Eeceipts,  San  Francisco 


Fig.  24. — There  has  been  a  marked  tendency  during  the  past  few  years  for  a 
lessening  in  the  seasonal  fluctuations  indicating  a  greater  proportionate  production 
during  the  fall  and  winter  months  compared  with  the  summer  months  although 
increase  of  storage  facilities  at  centers  of  production  have  had  some  influence 
especially  during  the  past  five  years.     Data  from  table  27,  p.  60. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


61 


Daily  receipts  and  prices  of  eggs. — The  daily  receipts  of  eggs  on 
the  San  Francisco  market  are  quite  evenly  distributed  among  the  six 
days  of  the  week  with  the  exception  of  Monday,  which  is  naturally 
the  day  of  largest  arrivals.  During  1925  shipments  arriving  on 
Monday  constituted  19.95  per  cent  of  the  week's  total.     Receipts  on 

Daily  Variation  in  Eeceipts  and  Wholesale  Prices  of  Eggs  at  San  Francisco, 

1925 

(In  per  cent  of  total  for  week) 


Per  cent 


Per  cent 


Fig.  25. — Eeceipts  on  the  San  Francisco  market  were  fairly  evenly  distributed 
during  1925 — Monday  and  Tuesday  being  the  days  of  heaviest  receipts — Wednes- 
day the  lowest.  During  the  year  higher  prices  prevailed  on  Tuesdays.  Differences 
between  the  other  days  of  the  week  were  negligible.  Data  based  on  Daily  Market 
Reports,  Butter,  Eggs  and  Cheese.  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  San 
Francisco. 


the  remaining  days  of  the  week  were:  Tuesday,  17.20  per  cent; 
Wednesday,  14.83  per  cent;  Thursday,  16.06  per  cent;  Friday,  15.04 
per  cent ;  Saturday,  15.20  per  cent. 

Daily  fluctuations  in  prices  of  extras  were  slight.  Tuesday 
apparently  for  1925  was  the  day  of  highest  prices. 

Prices  received  were:  Monday  16.7  per  cent  of  the  week's  total, 
Tuesday  17.0,  Wednesday  16.6,  Thursday  16.6,  Friday  16.6  and 
Saturday  16.5. 


62 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Eeceipts  of  Eggs  at  Markets  in  the  United  States,  1901-1925 


Thousands 


Fig.  26. — New  York  has  been  the  principal  egg  market  of  the  country  since 
1916,  with  Chicago  second  in  volume  of  receipts.  A  general  upward  trend  has 
taken  place  in  all  of  the  markets  although  there  is  considerable  variation  from 
year  to  year.     Data  from  table  28,  p.  63. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


6)3 


TABLE  28 

Eggs  :  Annual  Receipts  at  Seven  Leading  Markets  in  the  United  States 

1891-1925 


(Thousand  cases) 


Year 

Boston 

Chicago 

Cin- 
cinnati 

Mil- 
waukee 

New- 
York 

St. 
Louis 

San 
Francisco 

Total 

Averages: 

1891-1895 

722 

913 

1,155 

1,518 

1,879 
2,197 
2,991 
4,467 

289 
362 
419 
509 

91 
113 
140 
180 

2,114 
2,664 
3,057 
4,046 

557 

852 

1,001 

1,305 

166 
194 
305 
335 

5,818 

1896-1900 

7,296 

1901-1905 

9,068 

1906-1910 

12,360 

1901 

1,041 
1,053 
1,165 
1,123 
1,395 

1,710 
1,595 
1,437 
1,417 
1,432 

1,442 
1,580 
1,589 
1,531 

1,758 

1,650 
1,502 
1,604 
1,659 
1,648 

1,823 
1,970 
1,944 
1,827 
1,833 

2,784 
2,659 
3,279 
3,114 
3,116 

3,584 
4,780 
4,569 
4,558 
4,844 

4,707 
4,557 
4,594 
4,083 
4,896 

5,453 
5,679 
5,050 
4,617 
4,154 

4,155 
4,684 
5,009 
4,679 
4,498 

493 
465 
338 
377 
421 

484 
589 
441 
520 
512 

605 
669 
595 
462 
812 

854 
184 
177 
704 
1,396 

1,642 

1,703 

1,727 

550 

600 

128 
115 
129 
166 
160 

188 
177 
208 
160 
179 

175 
137 
191 
225 
193 

209 
135 
181 
263 
219 

167 
155 
183 
184 
173 

2,909 
2,744 
2,940 
3,216 

3,478 

3,981 
4,262 
3,704 
3,904 
4,331 

5,022 
4,724 
4,714 
4,882 
5,585 

4,858 
4,357 
5,027 
6,078 
5,158 

6,579 
6,821 
7,156 
6,894 
6,542 

1,023 
826 
960 

1,216 
980 

1,023 
1,289 
1,440 
1,396 
1,376 

1,737 
1,395 
1,398 
1,474 
1,493 

1,522 
1,373 
935 
1,874 
1,906 

2,406 
2,256 
2,715 

278 
285 
335 
320 
307 

137 
379 
347 
340 
470 

588 
639 
573 
620 
630 

575 
716 

667 
698 

757 

811 
838 
855 
760 

747 

8,655 

1902 

8,147 

1903 

9,147 

1904 

9,532 

1905 

9,858 

1906 

11,106 

1907 

13,071 

1908 

12,146 

1909 

12,295 

1910 

13,193 

1911 

14,276 

1912 

13,700 

1913 

1914 

13,654 
13,277 

1915 

15,367 

1916 

15,120 

1917 

13,945 

1918 

13,639 

1919 

16,822 

1920 

15,237 

1921 

17,584 

1922 

18,428 

1923 

19,591 

1924 

1925 

Sources  of  data:  1891-1923  furnished  to  the  author  by  the  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics;  1924-1925  for  New  York,  Boston,  and  Chicago  based  upon  compilations  made  by  the  author 
from  the  New  York  Produce  Review  and  American  Creamery.  1924-1925  figures  for  Cincinnati  fur- 
nished to  the  author  by  Cincinnati  Produce  Exchange.  1924-1925  figures  for  Milwaukee  furnished 
to  author  by  the  Milwaukee  Produce  Exchange.  1924-1925  figures  for  San  Francisco  furnished  by 
the  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  San  Francisco  office. 

Receipts  of  extra  and  pullet  eggs. — At  the  present  time,  no  specific 
division  is  made  between  the  receipts  of  pullets  and  extras  at  the 
principal  markets.  It  has  been  possible,  however,  to  obtain  records 
from  certain  large  receivers,  which  will  be  of  interest  and  value. 

The  following  are  the  receipts  of  one  large  southern  California 
concern,  segregated  into  extras,  pullets,  and  pewees : 


64 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  29 
Segregated  Egg  Receipts  of  Southern  California  Concern,  1918-1925 


Percentage  of  receipts 

Year 

Extras 

Pullets 

Pewees  or  No.  3's 

1918* 

81.9 

79.6 
77.7 
79.6 
78.5 
78.4 
77.8 
73.7 

17.3 

18.9 
20  5 
18.9 
19.7 
19.7 
20.2 
23.3 

82 

1919** ; 

1  5 

1920 

1  8 

1921 

1  5 

1922 

1  8 

1923 

1  9 

1924 

2  0 

1925 

3  0 

*  Two  weeks'  receipts  missing. 
**  One  week's  receipts  missing. 
Source  of  data:    Information  furnished  to  the  author. 

Although  these  are  only  a  portion  of  the  eggs  received,  some  idea 
at  least  of  the  percentage  of  the  various  grades  produced  in  the 
vicinity  can  be  obtained  (table  29).  These  figures  are  also  of  interest, 
because  of  the  decrease  in  the  percentage  of  extras  and  the  increase 
in  pullets  and  pewees.  This  latter  increase  may  be  due  to  an  aug- 
mentation of  certain  flocks  or  to  the  faulty  feeding  of  mature  birds.* 
In  addition,  more  careful  grading  is  now  practiced  than  in  former 
years.  At  times  in  the  past  dealers  refused  to  accept  very  small  and 
off-eggs,  which  are  at  present  received.  Heavy  culling  is  more  common 
at  present  than  formerly. 

Records  have  been  obtained  for  partial  receipts  at  San  Diego.  The 
percentages  there  vary  slightly  from  those  at  Los  Angeles.  The  same 
general  tendencies,  however,  are  evident.  The  receipts  are  in  the  main 
from  the  same  producers  during  the  three  years. 


TABLE  30 
Partial  Eeceipts  of  Eggs  by  Grades,  San  Diego,  1923-1925 


Year 

Per  cent  of  receipts 

Extras 

Pullets 

Pewees  or  No.  3's 

1923 

81.4 
75  0 

76.9 

17.4 
22.9 
21.1 

11 

1924 

1.2 

1925 

1.9 

Source  of  data:    Information  to  the  author. 


*  Information    from    E.    B.    Easson,    Specialist    in    Agricultural    Extension, 
resigned. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


65 


In  addition  to  the  receipts  in  central  California  segregated  by 
months  as  in  table  32,  two  additional  firms  have  given  the  author  a 
partial  record  of  their  segregated  receipts.  For  the  year,  March  1, 
1925,  to  February  28,  1926,  one  of  these,  a  Petaluma  receiver  (not 
included  in  table  32),  reports  the  following: 


Extras 


Pullets 


Pewees  or  No.  3's 


71.5% 


24.1% 


4.4% 


Another  concern  has  kept  records  since  January  1,  1926,  and  for 
the  first  four  months  of  1926  the  receipts  were  as  follows : 


TABLE  31 

Partial  Eeceipts  of  Eggs  by  Grades  by  San  Francisco  Concern,  1926 


Per  cent  of  receipts 

Month 

Extras 

Pullets 

Pewees 
or  No.  3's 

Checks 

Total 

January 

77.9 
78.2 
75.2 
72.8 

20.2 
20.0 
22.1 
24.1 

1.7 

1.7 
2.5 
2.9 

.2 
.1 

.2 
.2 

100 
100 

100 

100 

Total  (4  months) 

75.7 

21.8 

2.3 

.2 

100 

Source  of  data:    Information  to  the  author. 

From  the  above  compilations  and  from  table  32,  a  general  idea  of 
the  segregation  into  grades  can  be  obtained. 

One  of  the  most  illuminating  tables  (table  32)  available  is  that 
giving  the  segregation  of  receipts  from  certain  groups  of  producers 
in  central  California.  The  volume  of  these  perhaps  indicates  that  the 
records  were  representative  of  the  central  portion  of  the  state.  The 
receipts  are  segregated  into  clean  extras,  clean  pullets,  dirty  extras, 
dirty  pullets,  and  others  (firsts  and  thin  shells,  and  No.  3's).  Bakers 
and  checks  were  not  obtained  for  the  monthly  periods  in  table  32.  Of 
the  618,873  cases  (18,566,190  dozens)  received  in  the  above  grades  in 
1923,  only  79  per  cent  were  classed  as  clean  extras  and  pullets.  Over 
one-fifth  received  were  dirty  extras,  firsts,  thin  shells  and  No.  3's. 
The  clean  extras  amounted  to  less  than  60  per  cent  of  the  total 
(57.8  per  cent). 

Considerable  variation  exists  among  the  different  months  of  the 
year.  It  will  be  noted  that  of  the  clean  extras  and  pullets,  the  former 
are  relatively  more  plentiful  in  January,  February,  and  March,  while 
pullets  are  relatively  far  more  numerous  during  the  last  four  months 


66 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  32 

Partial  Monthly  Eeceipts  of  Eggs  from  Producers  in  Central  California 

Segregated  According  to  Grades,  1923-1925 


Receipts  in 

thousand 

cases 

Per  cent  of  receipts 

Month 

Clean 

Extras 

Clean 
Pullets 

Dirty 

Extras 

Dirty 

Pullets 

No.  3's  or 
Pewees 

Firsts, 

and  Thin 

Shells 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

1923 

January 

February 

March 

48 
55 
68 
73 
86 
56 
59 
38 
32 
32 
30 
40 

57.3 
62.4 
65.2 
60.2 
63.3 
64.0 
57.3 
53.3 
45.3 
45.6 
45.1 
48.8 

17.8 
15.9 
17.7 
18.5 
22.2 
20.7 
20.0 
20.6 
23.0 
30.5 
32.5 
27.5 

18.8 
16.9 
11.5 
13.8 

9.7 
10  4 
14.4 
14.8 
12.7 

8.3 
11.2 
15.0 

4.9 
3.6 
3.4 
4.8 
2.2 
2.1 
3.4 
4.1 
4.4 
4.5 
5.4 
6.0 

11 
1.0 
1.7 
2.1 
1.9 
1.9 
3.3 
5  5 
12  6 
10.4 
5.5 
2.6 

.1 
.2 
5 

April 

6 

7 

9 

July 

1  6 

1  7 

2  0 

October 

1.7 
.3 

.1 

Total 

619 

57  8 

21.2 

13.1 

3.8 

3  5 

.6 

1924 
January 

43 
57 
69 
90 
65 
53 
56 
38 
41 
29 
32 
45 

55.2 
56.9 
57.9 
54.0 
52.5 
53.2 
52.9 
53.2 
48.7 
44.3 
46.5 
51,2 

20.8 
19.2 
19.6 
19.3 
21.7 
22.7 
22.2 
20  4 
23.2 
29.2 
29.2 
22.5 

18.1 
18.5 
16.1 
18.2 
16.5 
15.3 
15.6 
13.9 
11.9 
11.7 
12.8 
17.7 

4.7 
4.2 
4.2 
5.4 
5.7 
5.3 
4.5 
3.8 
3.7 
5.6 
7.2 
6.8 

12 
1.2 
1.7 
2.4 
2.8 
2.9 
4.2 
8.1 
11.9 
9.0 
4.3 
1.8 

.5 

.7 

May 

.8 

.6 

July 

.6 

.6 

.6 

.2 

December 

Total 

618 

52.2* 

21.4* 

15.8* 

5.0* 

3.7* 

1.9* 

1925 

50 
66 
104 
84 
79 
83 
56 
51 
57 
39 
41 
61 

56.5 
53.9 
56.7 
53.0 
51.2 
52.3 
48.5 
46.7 
44.7 
43.1 
42.9 
43.8 

17.7 
16.1 
18.2 
17.9 
19.4 
20.2 
21.2 
19.9 
23.4 
30.2 
30.1 
22.8 

19.5 
23.7 
18.8 
21.6 
20.4 
17.8 
16.9 
15.9 
13.2 
11.7 
14.4 
22.1 

5.2 
5.1 

4  4 

5.5 
6  1 
5.3 

5.8 
5.2 

5  0 
5.9 
7.8 
8.8 

1.1 
12 
1.7 
1.9 
2.6 
3.8 
6.8 
11.7 
13.5 
8.9 
4.7 
2.4 

.2 

April 

.1 

.3 

.6 

July 

.8 

.6 

.2 

.2 

.1 

.1 

Total 

770 

49. 7t 

20. 3t 

18. 3t 

5.6| 

4.4f 

17t 

*  In  addition  to  monthly  receipts  segregated  above  a  total  of  9,713  cases  of  bakers'  eggs  were  received 
during  1924.  The  percentages  were  therefore  computed  on  the  basis  of  627,423  cases— the  total  receipts 
of  bakers  being  included  in  column  VIII  total  percentages. 

t  In  addition  to  monthly  receipts  segregated  above,  a  total  of  11,642  cases  of  bakers'  eggs  were  received 
during  1925.  The  percentages  were  therefore  computed  on  the  basis  of  782,033  cases— the  total  receipts 
of  bakers  being  included  in  column  VIII  total  percentages. 

Source  of  data:    Unpublished  data  furnished  to  author.    All  computations  by  the  author. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  67 

of  the  year.  Largely  on  account  of  this  fact,  pullet  eggs  are  relatively 
lower  in  value  during  the  fall  months  (table  20,  p.  45  and  fig.  18, 
p.  45).  The  winter  months  naturally  account  for  a  certain  proportion 
of  dirties;  nevertheless,  the  number  at  other  times  of  the  year  is 
surprising.  Rainfall  was  of  longer  duration  and  of  greater  magnitude 
in  the  spring  of  1925  than  in  the  spring  of  1924.  This  condition  is 
reflected  in  the  percentage  of  dirties.  The  months  of  September  and 
October  stand  out  as  the  months  of  high  numerical  and  high  per- 
centage receipts  of  No.  3's.  Managerial  measures  increasing  the  pro- 
duction of  clean  extras  during  the  fall  and  winter  are  financially 
remunerative  to  the  producer. 

Statistics  for  1924  and  1925  are  not  encouraging,  as  the  percentage 
of  clean  extras  and  pullets  dropped  from  79  per  cent  of  the  total 
receipts  in  1923  to  71  per  cent  in  1925  ;*  clean  extras  dropped  from 
57.8  per  cent  to  50.4*  per  cent  of  the  total,  while  the  dirty  extras 
were  36.8*  per  cent  as  numerous  as  the  clean  extras  in  1925  (com- 
pared with  22.6  per  cent  in  1923).  More  careful  grading  is  respons- 
ible in  part  for  the  results  in  table  32.  These  tables  are  worthy  of  the 
most  serious  and  careful  thought  by  those  interested  in  California's 
poultry  industry. 

EGG    SHIPMENTS 

California's  interstate  egg  shipments. — Imports  from  other  states 
and  foreign  countries  started  in  the  fifties,  while  the  out-of-state  ship- 
ments are  of  comparatively  recent  origin.  It  was  not  until  the  winter 
of  1911-1912  that  the  agricultural  pressf  stated,  "The  state  is  having 
a  new  experience  in  egg  shipments.  During  the  week  four  cars  of 
eggs  have  been  exported  to  the  frozen  East."  From  this  small  begin- 
ning, shipments  and  exports  have  increased  to  large  proportions. 
Unfortunately,  data  are  not  available  for  the  earlier  years  of  this 
movement.  In  1925  interstate  shipments  totaled  1195  cars,  the  largest 
on  record,  although  for  the  past  five  years,  the  tendency  has  been  for 
shipments  to  increase  only  slightly. 

Markets  for  California  eggs. — The  larger  proportion  of  California 
eggs  is  marketed  east  of  the  Mississippi  River.  The  Bureau  of  Agri- 
cultural Economics  reports  the  destination  of  cars  loaded  in  the  state 
and  over  95  per  cent  of  these  were  unloaded  east  of  the  Mississippi 
during  1925  (interstate  shipments). 

*  Percentages  computed  without  taking  account  of  bakers'  eggs  in  order  to 
make  data  comparable  with  that  for  1923. 

t  California  Cultivator,  February  14,  1912. 


68 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  33 
Eggs:  Monthly  Interstate  Shipments  from  California,  1923-1926 

(Thousand  cases — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


January 

February... 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November. 
December. 


1923 


1925 


1926 


Source  of  data:  Computed  by  the  author  on  the  basis  of  the  Daily  Market  Reports  on  Butter, 
Cheese,  Eggs,  and  Dressed  Poultry,  issued  by  the  San  Francisco  Office,  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics. 
The  shipments  represent  between  95  and  100  per  cent  of  the  total  interstate  shipments.  All  figures 
subject  to  revision. 


TABLE  34 

Eggs  :  Interstate  Shipments  from  California,  1925 

(Cars) 


Destination 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

Per 

cent 

of 
total 

119 

155 
4 
3 

45 

43 

2 

2 

19 

22 

3 

17 
18 
15 
4 

22 

34 

2 

3 

56 
11 
3 

42 

9 

1 

<    1 

57 

100 

93 
1 

116 

7 
1 
2 

841 
142 

39 

12 
3 
1 
9 

31 
6 
1 
6 
1 
5 

12 
4 

32 
2 
4 
2 

21 

71.7 

12.1 

3 

3.3 

1 

1.0 

1 

.3 

1 

.1 

2 
4 

4 

3 
2 

3 
6 

3 

.8 

Illinois 

3 

1 

2 

5 
1 

1 

1 

2 

1 
1 

2.7 

.5 

Ohio 

.1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 

.5 

.1 

1 

3 

3 

8 

.4 

1.0 

4 

1 

.3 

Florida 

1 

1 

1 

2 

4 

5 

8 

1 

9 

1 

2.8 

1 

.2 

3 

.3 

1 

2 

1 
1 

.2 

3 

7 

4 

4 

1.8 

130 

163 

101 

50 

56 

70 

77 

58 

70 

123 

130 

146 

1,174 

Source:  Computations  by  author  based  upon  mimeographed  Daily  Market  Reports  on  Butter, 
Cheese,  Eggs  and  Dressed  Poultry,  issued  by  the  San  Francisco  Office,  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics. 
The  shipments  are  for  1,174  cars  out  of  a  total  of  1,195.    All  figures  subject  to  revision. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


69 


There  has  been  a  marked  tendency  for  a  wider  distribution  of 
California  eggs  during  the  past  two  years.  During  1923  these  were 
unloaded  in  ten  states,  while  in  1924  this  number  increased  to  twelve. 
In  1925  shipments  were  made  to  nineteen  different  states  and  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

There  has  been  during  the  past  year  a  considerable  movement  into 
the  Southern  States  (Texas,  Louisiana,  Florida,  Virginia,  Maryland, 
Alabama,  Tennessee),  together  with  an  increase  to  certain  of  the 
Middle  Western  States  (Missouri,  Michigan,  Illinois,  Nebraska  and 
Ohio).  These  two  movements  have  also  been  accompanied  by  a  wider 
distribution  of  eggs  from  this  state  on  the  north  Atlantic  seaboard 
(Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsyl- 
vania), (table  34,  p.  68),  although  the  tendency  has  been  more  marked 
in  increasing  shipments  to  the  middle  west. 

New  York  is  the  most  important  out  of  state  market  for  California 
eggs  and  during  1925  took  approximately  70  per  cent  of  the  interstate 
shipments  table  34,  p.  68).  New  Jersey  was  the  second  market,  its 
receipts  from  this  state  being  approximately  12  per  cent  of  the  total 
interstate  shipments.  NewT  Jersey  should  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
New  York  market  as  eggs  are  often  unloaded  in  New  Jersey  terminals. 

Efforts  are  being  made  in  a  number  of  markets  outside  of  New 
York  to  develop  a  demand  for  a  white  egg  of  highest  quality. 

Shipping  districts  for  eggs  in  California. — The  principal  points  of 
origin  for  interstate  shipments  are  Petaluma,  Santa  Rosa,  Santa  Cruz, 
San  Francisco,  Sacramento,  Los  Angeles,  San  Diego,  Modesto,  and 


TABLE  35 

Eggs:   Interstate  Shipments  from  California  Points,  1920-1925 

(Cars) 


Origin 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

San  Francisco 

214 
744 

38(Misc.)* 
70 
45 

114 

615 

20 
32 
38 

103 
694 
53 

13 
18 
18 

73 

639 

62 

21 

3 

17 
29 

8 

63 

Petaluma 

889 

Santa  Rosa 

98 

35 

Oakland 

3 

70 

Los  Angeles 

25 

San  Diego 

5 

Modesto 

5 

1 

Riverside 

1 

Total 

920 

1,111 

819 

899 

852 

1,195 

*  The  38  cars  represent  shipments  from  Santa  Cruz  plus  other  California  points  not  listed. 
Source  of  data:     1920  U.  S.  D.  A.  Crops  and  Markets,  1922,  p.  526;  1921-1925,  mimeographed  Daily 
Market  Report  on  Butter,  Cheese,  Eggs  and  Dressed  Poultry,  San  Francisco.    No.  12,  1926. 


70  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Oakland  (table  35,  p.  69).  Indications  point  to  a  decrease  in  eastern 
shipments  from  the  large  cities  of  the  state  and  a  corresponding 
increase  in  the  shipments  from  points  nearest  production  centers. 
This  has  come  about  through  the  development  of  cold  storage  facilities 
in  production  centers,  the  necessity  for  applying  processing  as  soon 
after  laying  as  possible,  and  the  saving  of  time  and  expense  in  ship- 
ments. All  of  these  factors  make  for  a  shipping  product  of  higher 
quality.  Obviously,  the  decrease  in  eastern  shipments  from  the  larger 
centers  of  population  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  increasing  popula- 
tion of  these  cities.  Santa  Rosa,  Santa  Cruz,  and  Sacramento  espe- 
cially stand  out  in  connection  with  the  increase  in  cars  loaded  for 
interstate  shipment. 

Egg  shipments  from  Petaluma. — Petaluma  far  outdistances  every 
other  shipping  point  in  the  number  of  eggs  shipped.  From  1900  to 
1921,  the  rate  of  increase  was  very  rapid;  from  1921  to  1925,  it  has 
been  proportionately  less  rapid  than  during  the  war  and  pre-war 
period. 

•  A  study  of  the  graph  (fig.  28,  p.  72)  gives  a  very  clear  indication 
of  the  relatively  large  spring  and  the  small  winter  and  fall  shipments. 
This  variation  is  more  noticeable  in  the  1910-1914  period  than  in  the 
1921-1925  period.  The  season  of  above-normal  shipments  coincides 
with  the  period  of  low  prices,  while  the  season  of  below-normal  ship- 
ments coincides  with  increased  prices. 

Such  a  condition  is  what  might  naturally  be  expected  because  of 
supply  and  demand.  Similar  reasoning  might  indicate  that  there 
would  be  little  benefit  to  the  poultryman  in  bringing  about  an  equaliza- 
tion of  production  throughout  the  year.  However,  since  California's 
contribution  to  the  egg  supply  of  the  United  States  is  not  a  prime 
factor  in  setting  the  price  level,  and  since  there  is  little  likelihood 
of  any  such  equalization  in  the  largest  producing  areas  of  the  country 
because  of  the  greater  seasonal  changes  in  climate,  advantage  would 
accrue  to  the  California  poultryman  from  an  increased  fall  and  winter 
production.  Egg  shipments  are  somewhat  indicative  of  production 
in  the  Petaluma  district,  and  a  realization  of  the  advantage  of  higher 
fall  and  winter  production  is  expressed  by  the  marked  difference  in 
the  curves.  Whereas,  the  peak  of  shipments  in  1910-1914  was  160 
per  cent  of  normal ;  in  1921-1925,  it  was  only  128  per  cent.  For  the 
former  period,  "low"  was  57  per  cent  normal;  for  the  latter  period, 
80  per  cent.  The  significant  point  is  not  so  much  the  lowering  of  the 
high  peak,  as  it  is  the  raising  of  shipments  in  those  months  in  which 
a  high  price  obtains.    Moreover,  this  has  not  been  accomplished  at  the 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


71 


expense  of  lowering  the  yearly  production ;  as  the  latter,  on  the  con- 
trary, has  been  on  the  increase.  The  real  explanation  is  that  a 
re-distribution  of  the  production  has  caused  the  change  in  shipments, 
advantageous  to  the  producer.     Some  of  these   changes  have  been 

Shipments  of  Eggs,  1905-1925,  and  Poultry,  1905-1923,  from  Petaluma 

Thousand 
Dozr&n 
£ggs 

Darren 
Poul-hry 

too,  ooo 

75,000 


50,000 


Z5.00Q 


lO,  OOO 
%500 


2,500 


/poo 


Pou/-rrt/-p 

i 

i 
/ 

/ 

/ 

/            „ 

/l 

'                 1 

^Eggs 

1    ""***' 

^C^-Z^ 

KV^ 

/          y— — 

i/ 

V 

,4C-S 

Fig.  27. — In  22  years  shipments  of  eggs  from  Petaluma  have  increased  from 
3,407,333  dozen  eggs  to  over  30,000,000.  More  rapid  than  the  increase  in  the  egg 
shipments  has  been  the  phenomenal  increase  in  the  shipments  of  poultry  since  1919. 
Data  for  poultry  shipments  for  1924  and  1925  is  incomplete.  Data  from  table  36, 
p.  72,  and  table  64,  p.  108. 

brought  about  by  the  availability  of  increased  storage  facilities  at 
Petaluma. 

For  five  months  in  the  1921-1925  period  the  relative  seasonal  varia- 
tions of  shipments  were  below  those  of  the  1910-1914  period,  while  in 
one  month  they  were  practically  the  same  and  in  six  months  higher. 
These  facts  indicate  a  relatively  higher  production  in  July,  August, 
September,  October,  November,  December,  and  January. 


72 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  36 
Eggs:  Shipments  from  Petaluma,  1903-1925 


Year 

Thousand 
dozens 

Year 

Thousand 
dozens 

1903 

3,407 
3,493 
3,867 
4,334 
4,423 
5,313 
7,159 
7,288 
8,134 

1912 

10,232 
10,465 
9,432 
11,681 
13  102 

1904 

1913 

1905 

1914... 

1906 

1915 

1907 

1916. . 

1908 

1917.. 

15  552 

1909 

1918.. 

16,046 
16,047 
22,224 

1910 

1919... 

1911 

1920.. 

Indices  of  Seasonal  Variation  in  Shipments  of  Eggs  from  Petaluma, 
1910-1914  and  1921-1925 


— 19IO  -  1 

m 

f   y 

.^.^-^ 

\ 

1/ 

X^/5 

Z/  -  /9Zi 

^\ 

^^ 

/I 
/ 

Cv^ 

-g-.- 

1 

Fig.  28. — The  graph  shows  the  variation  throughout  the  year  in  the  shipments 
of  eggs  from  Petaluma  for  the  five-year  periods  of  1910-1914  and  1921-1925. 
The  heavy  horizontal  or  normal  line  represents  shipments  which  would  be  uniform 
throughout  the  year  and  deviations  above  the  line  show  an  increase  above  normal 
shipments  while  deviations  below  the  line  show  a  decrease  from  the  normal. 
A  study  of  the  graph  gives  a  very  clear  indication  of  the  large  spring  shipments 
and  the  relatively  small  fall  and  winter  shipments.  This  is  more  noticeable  in  the 
1910-1914  period  than  for  the  1921-1924  period.  The  season  of  above  normal 
shipments  coincides  with  the  period  of  low  prices  while  the  season  of  below  normal 
shipments  is  coincident  with  that  of  increased  prices.     Data  from  table  38,  p.  73. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


73 


TABLE  37 

Monthly  Egg  Shipments  from  Petaluma,  1921-1925 

(Thousand  dozens — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Month 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1,899 
2,329 
3,246 
3,378 
3,164 
2,583 
2,152 
1,906 
1,620 
1,540 
1,544 
1,594 

1,858 
2,386 
2,781 
3,169 
3,119 
2,785 
2,342 
1,973 
1,621 
1,947 
1,614 
1,727 

2,071 
2,862 
3,131 
2,653 
2,644 
2,586 
2,364 
2,196 
2,017 
2,101 
2,351 
2,256 

2,339 
2,845 
2,966 
3,063 
2,471 
2,231 
2,271 
1,991 
2,114 
2,438 
2,351 
2,593 

2,360 
2,685 
3,016 
2,578 
2,158 
2,476 
2,597 
2,061 
2,406 
2,492 
2,423 
2,847 

2,737 

2,910 

2,612 

April 

2,667 

June 

3,251 

July 

2,495 

Total    . . 

26,054 

27,321 

29,202 

29,672 

30,099 

Source  of  data:    Furnished  to  author  by  the  editor  of  the  Petaluma  Weekly  Poultry  Journal. 


TABLE  38 

Eggs:   Seasonal  Variation  in  Shipments  from  Petaluma, 
1910-1914  and  1921-1925 


Month 

1910-1914 

1921-1925 

72.3 
121.0 
153.9 
160.3 
138.8 
109.6 
94.9 
93.9 
69.6 
65.2 
57.3 
63.2 

90.3 

110.7 

124.4 

128.4 

120.3 

108.6 

July 

99.3 

87.0 

80.0 

83.3 

81.0 

86.7 

100. 

100. 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  the  author  on  the  basis  of  the  monthly  shipments  of  eggs  from 
Petaluma  furnished  by  the  Petaluma  Weekly  Poultry  Journal  (Table  37;  1910-1914  monthly  figures  in 
possession  of  author).  Both  sets  of  indices  were  computed  by  the  link  relative  method.  On  the  basis 
of  100  for  each  month  the  shipments  during  April  of  the  period  1910-1914  were  60.3  per  cent  above  the 
average  of  100,  etc. 


The  New  York  market. — The  New  York  market  has  been  by  far 
the  most  important  eastern  market  for  all  Pacific  Coast  eggs  including 
those  from  California. 

During  1925  eggs  from  thirty-two  different  states,  located  in 
every  geographical  division  of  the  United  States  (table  39,  p.  74) 
were  received  on  this  market.    The  largest  part  of  the  supply  came 


74 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


from  the  Mississippi  Valley  states.    During  1925  the  states  in  which 
the  larger  portion  of  New  York's  receipts  originated  were:  Illinois, 

TABLE  39 

Eggs:  Eeceipts  at  New  York  City  by  States  of  Origin,  1925 

(ThousancFcases — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


States 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov 

Dec. 

* 

3 

o 

H 

Per 

cent 

of 
total 

Arkansas 

1 
48 

3 

77 

2 
62 

1 
17 

1 
16 

1 
11 

1 

27 

1 

56 

10 

456 

3 

80 

10 

1258 

568 

924 

197 

74 

118 

13 

70 

246 

364 

56 

216 

688 

4 

1 

324 

19 

54 

244 

14 

189 

25 

41 

92 

375 

5 

90 
45 
20 

I 

26 

24 

23 

37 

44 

6.6 

Connecticut 

4 

7 
1 
79 
30 
31 
23 
9 
10 

10 
2 
170 
68 
73 
36 
20 
17 

12 

10 

8 

6 

101 

48 

91 

14 

3 

11 

2 

6 

27 

17 

2 

15 

65 

5 

4 

3 

2 

4 

1.2 
1 

Idaho 

56 
15 
9 
9 
3 
6 
5 
4 
3 

18 

2 

15 

45 

251 

117 
172 
30 
19 
19 
1 
12 
41 
77 
15 
29 
104 

182 
85 

130 
17 
5 
15 

13 
40 
29 
2 
28 
100 

150 
79 
152 
22 

5 
12 

1 

10 
43 
35 

8 
22 
96 

89 

42 

100 

10 

2 

9 

1 

7 

25 

21 

3 

12 

47 

72 
31 
97 
9 
1 
6 

60 
28 
44 
9 
3 
4 

24 
8 

13 
6 
1 
3 

1 
3 
13 
1 
10 
19 

25 
16 
13 
11 
2 
6 
1 
1 
4 
22 
2 

16 
32 

18.3 
8.2 

13.4 
2.9 
1.1 
1.7 
2 

Massachusetts 

4 

6 
43 

5 
20 
44 

1 

2 
19 
54 
10 
30 
73 

2 

5 

25 

19 

1 

11 

38 

4 
10 
16 
5 
8 
26 

1.0 
3  6 

5  3 

8 

3  1 

10  0 

North  Carolina 

1 

North  Dakota 

Ohio 

6 

1 

5 

11 

11 
8 
9 

14 

26 
7 
6 

27 
1 

60 

15 
7 

19 

32 
1 

11 
5 
4 

62 

4 

33 
3 

30 
1 
4 

18 

17 
1 

16 
6 
4 

55 

6 
34 

3 
23 

50 

30 

29 

23 

18 

1 
5 
10 

1 
2 

5 

10 

4  7 

3 

2 
32 

2 
11 

1 
27 

3 

22 

2 

20 

1 

2 

4 
5 
1 
2 

8 
11 

1 
4 

g 

3  5 

2 

10 

41 
8 
6 
9 

39 
1 
2 
3 
4 

4 

2 

2  8 

4 

Utah 

2 

5 

35 

2 
14 
30 

1 

18 
6 
1 

1 
8 

30 
1 

20 
5 
2 

1 

5 

26 

4 

23 

2 
3 
23 

1 

2 
26 

4 

1 
36 

10 
3 

59 

6 

1  3 

5  4 

West  Virginia 

.1 

1 
3 

2 

9 
4 

3 
4 

1 

5 
3 

3 
2 

1 
2 

1 
2 
1 

1.3 

Parcel  Post 

.7 

3 

Totals— 1925 

325 
301 
386 
335 
314 

550 
410 
447 
425 

476 

872 
717 
981 
919 
999 

1115 

1082 
924 
1160 
1012 

871 
970 
1163 
993 
742 

838 
789 
796 
784 
681 

550 
599 

596 
592 
525 

490 
429 
527 
427 
517 

427 
405 
416 
381 
440 

328 
361 
377 
337 
362 

208 
221 
270 
226 
251 

320 
259 
272 
242 
260 

6894 
6542 
7156 
6821 
6579 

1924 

1923 

1922 

1921 

*  Since  all  figures  are  not  given  in  thousands,  totals  for  years  may  not  exactly  equal  sum  of  ship- 
ments for  various  months. 

Source  of  data:  Mimeographed  sheet  issued  by  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics,  New 
York  Office,  1926. 

Iowa,  New  York,  Indiana,  California,  Washington,  Missouri,  Ohio, 
Minnesota,  Pennsylvania  (see  table  39). 

"While  California  competes  not  only  with  every  other  state  and 
foreign  country  shipping  eggs  to  New  York,  the  more  direct  competi- 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  75 

tion  is  with  those  sections  producing  a  white  product  which  com- 
mands a  premium  over  the  brown  and  mixed  lots  (table  40,  p.  76). 

The  two  outstanding  competitors  of  California  on  this  market  are 
(a)  those  states  near  to  New  York  City  (New  York,  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland  and  the  New  England  states)  — 
table  40,  p.  76,  and  (6)  the  Pacific  Coast  states  of  Washington  and 
Oregon.  The  states  of  Utah  and  Idaho  are  grouped  with  Washington 
and  Oregon  in  the  discussion  of  this. competition. 

There  has  been  a  steady  increase  in  the  receipts  from  the  Pacific 
Coast  (plus  Utah  and  Idaho)  both  in  quantity  and  in  the  percentage 
of  the  total  receipts  (fig.  30).  Table  41,  page  77  shows  the  total 
yearly  receipts  from  the  Pacific  Coast  states.  The  average  prices 
received  represent  those  for  white  eggs  and  brown  or  mixed  eggs. 

The  heaviest  shipments  of  eggs  to  New  York  occur  during  the  seven 
months,  February-August,  inclusive.  During  these  months  76  per 
cent  of  the  receipts  arrive  (76  per  cent,  1925;  76  per  cent,  1924; 
76  per  cent,  1923 ;  77  per  cent,  1922 ;  75  per  cent,  1921 ;  75  per  cent, 
1920). 

The  bulk  of  the  shipments  of  Pacific  Coast  eggs,  both  in  quantity 
and  percentage  especially  during  the  past  two  years  has  been  received 
from  October  to  March,  inclusive  (table  43,  p.  79). 

During  1925,  two-thirds  of  the  Pacific  Coast  receipts  (66  per  cent) 
arrived  during  the  winter  half  year  (1924,  70  per  cent).  The  receipts 
from  California  have  followed  the  same  general  seasonal  variation  as 
those  from  the  remaining  Pacific  Coast  area,  although  the  percentage 
of  receipts  from  California  during  the  winter  half-year  has  been 
slightly  higher  than  the  above  mentioned  (1925,  71  per  cent;  1924, 
78  per  cent).  Oregon  and  Washington  especially  have  had  less  of  a 
seasonal  variation  in  interstate  shipments,  maintaining  relatively 
higher  levels  during  the  summer  months.  The  shipments  from  Cali- 
fornia during  the  fall  and  winter  are  high  in  comparison  with  actual 
egg  production.  Many  eastern  buyers  store  eggs  in  the  spring  for 
shipment  in  the  fall  and  winter.  Fresh  eggs  are  used  in  the  fall  as 
local  buyers  store  their  own  supply  in  the  spring.  Oregon  and 
Washington  produce  relatively  far  more  eggs  for  export  than  Cali- 
fornia. Receipts  at  producers  associations  in  the  two  former  states 
indicate  a  more  even  production  throughout  the  year. 

During  the  past  year  (1925-26)  there  has  been  a  material  increase 
in  New  York's  supply  of  white  eggs  from  the  Pacific  Coast.  Not- 
withstanding the  influx  of  this  greater  quantity,  both  actually  and 
relatively  to  the  total  supply,  the  price  obtained  for  them  showed  an 


76 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


average  gain  over  1924  as  compared  with  that  of  western  firsts 
(table  41,  p.  77).  The  greatest  premiums  of  Pacific  Coast  whites  over 
western  firsts  are  usually  obtained  in  the  period  July  to  November, 
this  excess  being  especially  noteworthy  in  November,  because  arrivals 
of  white  eggs  on  the  New  York  market  from  points  nearby  are 
relatively  small  at  this  time. 

TABLE  40 

Eeceipt  of  Eggs,  New  York  City,  from  States  near  to  New  York  City, 
12  Months  Ending  February  28,  1923-1926 


1925-26 

1924-25 

1923-24 

1922-23 

State 

Thousand 
cases 

Per  cent 

Thousand 
cases 

Per  cent 

Thousand 
cases 

Per  cent 

Thousand 
cases 

Per  cent 

681 
214 
255 
74 
111 
10 
44 

49.0 
15.4 
18.3 
5.3 
8.0 
.8 
3.2 

621 
215 
255 

73 

113 

6 

51 

46.5 
16.2 
19.1 
5.5 
8.4 
.5 
3.8 

655 
210 
246 

69 

127 

5 

58 

47.7 
15.3 
17.9 
5.0 
9.4 
.4 
4.3 

507 

158 

265 

53 

90 

45  5 
14.2 
23.8 
5.0 

8.2 

Pennsylvania 

Delaware 

New  England 

4 
32 

.4 

2  9 

Parcel  Post 

Total 

1,389 

100 

1,334 

100 

1,370 

100 

1,109 

100 

Source  of  data:    From  February  and  March  numbers  of  the  New  York  Dairy  Produce  Review  and 
American  Creamery. 


Seasonal  Variations  in  the  Interstate  Shipments  of  Eggs  from  California, 

Thousands  1923-1926 


1 

i 

\£ 

\ 

/r 

i 

V 

v 

I9Z5^ 

\     / 

i 

i 

Xs 

o^ 

/9Z6 

19Z4 

A 

^ 

y  s 

/     > 

*v\ 

C^ 

*>£' 

"^x" 

wl 

.-'i 

**, 

/' 

""^  ..»* 

<    *-* 

'      I9Z3J 

N 

\ 

'./ 

~*~' 

"^ 

<y 

\      t 

.    i 

J 

L 

r     . 

^     ; 

I        i 

s 

:             Q 

Fig.  29. — The  largest  shipments  of  eggs  have  been  made  from  California  from 
October  to  March  during  the  past  three  years.  It  would  be  fortunate  for  the  egg 
producer  if  a  greater  fall  production  could  be  brought  about.  The  shipments  in 
March  and  April  in  spite  of  the  low  relative  price  tend  to  prevent  the  price  from 
declining  further  (table  33,  p.  68). 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


77 


TABLE  41 

Egg  Eeceipts  at  New  York  from  the  Pacific  Coast  and  Comparative 

Wholesale  Prices  for  Western  Firsts  and  Pacific  Coast 

Whites,  1920-1926 


Receipts 

from  Pacific 

Coast 

(thousand 

cases) 

Percentage 
of  total  New 
York  receipts 

Wholesale  prices 

Difference 

Year 
Mar.  1-Feb.  28 

Western 
Firsts 

Pacific 
Coast  Whites 

between 
IV  and  V 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

1920-21 

403 
513 
576 

757 
733 
968 

7.0 
8.5 
8.3 
10.8 
10.9 
14.1 

55.13 
37.99 
34.92 
24.85 
37.85 
37.19 

68.16 
52.07 
46.89 
45.99 
47.28 
48.29 

13.02 

1921-22 

14.59 

1922-23 

11.97 

1923-24 

11.14 

1924-25 

9  43 

1925-26 

11.10 

Source  of  data:     From  February  and  March  numbers  of  the  New  York  Dairy  Produce  Review  and 
American  Creamery. 

Competition  with  the  other  Pacific  Coast  states  in  supplying  this 
market  has  been  particularly  keen.  During  the  past  few  years  the 
other  western  states,  especially  Washington  and  Oregon,  have  been 
increasing  their  shipments  more  rapidly  than  California  (fig.  32,  p.  82 
and  table  42,  p.  77).  During  the  twelve  months  ending  February  28, 
1926,  Washington  crowded  California  for  first  place  in  shipments 
from  the  Pacific  Coast,  California  supplying  44.6  per  cent  of  this  total, 
and  Washington  43.1  per  cent.  The  proportion  of  the  receipts  fur- 
nished by  the  various  western  states  is  shown  by  the  following  table : 


TABLE  42 

Receipts  of  Eggs,  New  York  City,  from  Pacific  Coast  States,  12  Months 
Ending  February  28,  1923-1926 


1925-26 

1924-25 

1923-24 

1922-23 

Thousand 
cases 

Per  cent 

Thousand 
cases 

Per  cent 

Thousand 
cases 

Per  cent 

Thousand 

cases 

Per  cent 

432 

418 

59 

51 

9 

44.6 

43.1 

6.1 

5.3 

.9 

368 

273 

46 

41 

5 

50.3 

37.3 

6.2 

5.6 

.6 

440 

257 

39 

21 

58.1 

33.9 

5.1 

2.9 

374 

184 

17 

65  0 

32  0 

3  0 

Utah 

Idaho 

Total 

969 

100 

733 

100 

757 

100 

575 

100 

Sources  of  data:     From  February  and  March  numbers  of  the  New  York  Dairy  Produce  Review  and 
American  Creamery. 


Keceipts  of  Eggs  at  New  York  from  Pacific  Coast  States 


Thousands 

*~f 

Cases 


S.OOO 


New  York  Egg  Receipts 


/jOOO 


500 


/OO 


SO 


10 


Secular  Trend 


&eee/pTS 
Pacific 
Utah    ana 


Receip-fs 
Ca/i-fomih 


Receipts 


-from     ~rhe 
Oposf  (in 

Tdaho) 


■from 


-from   Wash 


cloc  'Sng 


Receipts 


■from    (/fa,  h 


Receipt's   from   Oregon 


Receipts    -from 


Fig.  30. — See  description  on  bottom  of  page  79. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


79 


TABLE  43 

Monthly  Receipts  of  Eggs  from  the  Pacific  Coast  at  New  York 
Wholesale  Prices  of  Western  Firsts  and  White  Eggs, 
March,  1920-October,  1926 


Average 


Total 

receipts 

(thousand 

cases) 

I 

Receipts 

from 

Pacific 

Coast 

(thousand 

cases) 

II 

Per  cent 

of 

receipts 

from 

Pacific 

Coast 

III 

Receipts 

from 

California 

(thousand 

cases) 

IV 

Per  cent 

of 

receipts 

from 

California 

V 

Average  prices 
(cents  per  dozen) 

Month 

Western 

Firsts 

VI 

Whites* 
VII 

Differ- 
ence 
VIII 

1920 
March 

618 
563 
697 
725 
470 
370 
334 
272 
209 
211 

65 
28 
16 
24 
31 
28 
17 
19 
13 
32 

11 
5 
2 
3 
6 
7 
4 
6 
5 

10 

48.26 
43.80 
44.28 
42.99 
46.88 
51.04 
56.76 
63.82 
76.96 
78.17 

55.83 
52.00 
50.12 
52.23 
61.06 
66.54 
77.16 
91.46 
96.77 
90.40 

7  57 

April 

8  20 

May 

5  84 

June 

9  24 

July 

14  18 

August 

15.50 

September 

20  40 

27  64 

19  81 

December 

12.23 

1921 

314 
476 
999 
1,012 
742 
681 
525 
517 
440 
362 
251 
260 

64 
66 
86 
33 
36 
32 
41 
44 
33 
32 
28 
36 

21 
14 
9 
3 
5 
4 
8 
8 
7 
9 
10 
12 

66.83 
41.82 
30.56 
27.06 
24.67 
26.70 
33.26 
35.32 
38.98 
49.00 
58.15 
53.89 

72.36 
51.93 
40.15 
34.15 
31.42 
34.50 
45.94 
52.67 
61.00 
69.72 
83.17 
77.04 

5  53 

10  11 

March 

9.59 

April 

7.09 

6  75 

7  80 

July 

12.68 

17.35 

22  02 

20  72 

November 

25.02 

23  15 

1922 
January 

335 
424 
919 
1,178 
994 
784 
574 
427 
381 
337 
226 
242 

43 
68 
104 
22 
31 
36 
40 
26 
23 
39 
53 
49 

13.5 
15.3 
11.1 

1.9 

3. 

4.3 

7.1 

6. 

6.3 
11.8 
23.1 
19.5 

23 
51 
65 
14 
20 
24 
25 
17 
22 
26 
41 
26 

6.9 
12.0 
7.1 
1.2 
2.0 
3.1 
4.4 
4.0 
5.8 
7.7 
18.1 
10.7 

40.93 
37.36 
25.22 
25.94 
26.59 
24.69 
24.18 
25.62 
38.78 
43.26 
52.92 
52.96 

49.78 
45.26 
31.76 
32.28 
31.27 
33.98 
35.28 
40.25 
54.10 
70.18 
75.49 
64.24 

8.85 

February 

14.08 

6.54 

6.34 

May 

4.68 

June 

9.29 

July 

11.1 

14.63 

September 

15.32 

26.92 

22.57 

December 

11.28 

Average  price  of  white  eggs  covers  firsts  to  extras  (New  York). 


Fig.  30. — Receipts  of  eggs  from  the  Pacific  Coast  States  (including  Utah  and 
Idaho)  on  the  New  York  market  have  increased  proportionately  more  rapidly  than 
the  total  volume  of  receipts.  There  has  not  been  a  pronounced  tendency  for  the 
receipts  from  California  to  increase.  The  receipts  from  the  State  of  Washington 
have  increased  relatively  more  rapidly  than  the  total  receipts  on  the  New  York 
market  and  in  addition  more  rapidly  than  the  total  volume  of  receipts  from  the 
Pacific  Coast  and  far  more  rapidly  than  the  receipts  from  California.  The  general 
tendency  has  been  for  Oregon  to  increase  shipments  since  1922.  Utah  receipts 
show  a  considerable  volume  and  in  1925  receipts  from  Idaho  are  above  10,000 
cases.*     (Tables  39,  43,  pages  74,  79.) 

*  Equation  for  line  of  trend  is  log  y  =  2.66  +  .016  x. 


80 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Table  43 — (Concluded) 


Total 

receipts 

(thousand 

cases) 

I 

Receipts 
from 
Pacific 
Coast 

(thousand 

cases) 

II 

Per  cent 

of 

receipts 

from 

Pacific 

Coast 

III 

Receipts 

from 

California 

(thousand 

cases) 

IV 

Per  cent 

of 

receipts 

from 

California 

V 

Average  prices 
(cents  per  dozen) 

Month 

Western 

Firsts 

VI 

Whites* 
VII 

Differ- 
ence 
VIII 

1923 

386 
447 
981 
924 
1,163 
796 
596 
528 
416 
377 
270 
272 

65 
87 
123 
51 
50 
33 
56 
67 
49 
39 
68 
65 

16.8 

19.5 

12.5 

5  5 

4.3 

4.2 

9.5 

12.7 

11.9 

10.3 

25.2 

24.0 

26 
53 
94 
27 
35 
14 
31 
36 
31 
21 
33 
29 

6.7 
11.9 
9.6 
2.9 
3.0 
1.8 
5.2 
6.8 
7.5 
5.6 
12.2 
10.7 

41.94 
36.94 
30.81 
27.39 
27.34 
24.21 
25.16 
28.79 
35.78 
38.50 
52.79 
47.24 

50.56 
43.30 
37.83 
35.71 
35.41 
33.87 
35.79 
41.96 
48.71 
63.17 
69.75 
58.25 

8  62 

6  36 

7  02 

8.32 

8.07 

9.66 

July 

10.63 

13.17 

12.93 

25.25 

November 

16.96 
11.01 

1924 

301 
410 
717 
1,082 
970 
789 
599 
429 
405 
361 
221 
259 

57 
98 
103 
36 
40 
26 
31 
30 
37 
54 
64 
95 

19.0 

23.8 

14.3 

4.7 

4  1 

3.3 

5.3 

7.0 

9.2 

14.9 

29.0 

36.6 

22 
67 
53 
14 
15 
5 
11 
16 
13 
30 
35 
50 

7.3 

16.4 

7.4 

1.3 

1.5 

.7 

1.9 

3.8 

3.2 

8.3 

15  8 

19.3 

41.60 
38.63 
24.49 
24.18 
25.13 
27.08 
28.07 
32.69 
39.06 
43  85 
52.37 
57.06 

49.00 
42.50 
31.04 
32.54 
32.25 
34.14 
36.26 
43.02 
52.73 
64.38 
69.74 
63.54 

7.40 

3.87 

March 

6.55 

8.36 

7  12 

7.06 

July 

8.19 

10  33 

13.67 

20.53 

17  37 

6.48 

1925 

325 
550 
872 
1,115 
871 
838 
550 
490 
427 
328 
208 
320 

90 
126 
109 
41 
55 
60 
60 
51 
50 
70 
88 
131 

27.7 

23.0 

12.5 

3.7 

6.3 

7.1 

10.9 

10.3 

11.1 

21.2 

42.2 

41.1 

48 
77 
62 
17 
16 
27 
26 
24 
23 
36 
44 
56 

14  6 

14.0 

7.11 

1.5 

1.9 

3.2 

4.7 

4.9 

5.4 

11.1 

21.2 

17.4 

58.17 
42.03 
30.42 
29.37 
31.50 
32.60 
33.45 
32.88 
36  62 
43.39 
57.29 
49.37 

62.21 
45  46 
37.86 
37.88 
39.04 
41.67 
44.30 
45.74 
54.06 
68.37 
70.16 
56.87 

4  04 

3.43 

7.44 

8.51 

7.54 

9.07 

July 

10.85 

12.86 

17.44 

24.98 

12.87 

7.50 

1926 

393 
471 
813 
860 

868 
872 
579 
502 
433 
345 

131 
122 
107 
59 
49 
64 
56 
53 
82 
99 

33.4 

26.0 

12.7 

6.8 

5  7 

7.3 

9.7 

10.7 

19.0 

28.9 

45 
55 

49 
22 
16 
26 
23 
20 
39 
44 

11  5 
11.6 
6  0 
2.5 
1.8 
3  0 
4.0 
3.9 
8.9 
12.8 

38.18 
31.20 

44  08 
39.42 

5  90 

8.22 

July 

*  Average  price  of  white  eggs  covers  firsts  to  extras  (New  York). 
Sources  of  data:   1920-1925  from  March  numbers  of  the  New  York  Produce  Review  and  American 
Creamery.   1926,  Current  data  from  Market  News  Service,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  New  York 
City. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


81 


Eeceipts  of  Eggs,  New  York,  1922-1926 


Thousands 
of  Coses 


Fig.  31. — While  California  eggs  compete  with  those  of  31  other  states  on  the 
New  York  market,  the  more  direct  competition  is  with  those  states  producing 
white  eggs.  The  remaining  Pacific  Coast  States  (plus  Utah  and  Idaho)  and  the 
states  adjacent  to  New  York  are  California's  main  competitors.  The  peak  months 
for  receipts  on  the  New  York  market  are  April  and  May  which  are  also  the  peak 
months  for  receipts  from  nearby  states.  The  peak  of  shipments  from  the  Pacific 
Coast  has  reached  New  York  from  one  to  three  months  earlier  than  either  the  peak 
of  total  shipments  or  the  shipments  from  nearby  states.  During  1924,  1925,  and 
1926  especially,  the  trough  in  California  shipments  was  opposite  the  peak  of  total 
receipts  for  New  York.    Data  from  table  43,  p.  79. 


82 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Interstate   Shipments  of  Eggs  from  California,  Washington  and   Oregon 

Cars 
160 

/eo 

140 
IZO 
100 

eo 
eo 


40 


zo 

18 

te 

14 

io 


8 


7 
I 


Woshing'f'on 


I 


7 


Shipm$ni~s  ~fr\pm 
Ore9 


iorp 


k 


gg 


tf 


v 


X 


\ 


T 


/ 


r 


p 


i 


i 


V 


v 


*»: 

c' 

c 

£> 

s: 

c 

e 

« 

^o 

1 

} 

H 

* 

19Z4- 


19Z5 


Fig.  32. — California's  northern  competitors  are  increasing  their  interstate 
shipments  more  rapidly  than  California.  Tables  42,  p.  77,  and  44,  p.  83.  Ship- 
ments from  all  three  states  tend  to  be  larger  in  the  fall  and  winter  months.  The 
increases  from  Oregon  and  Washington  in  the  winter  of  1925-1926  were  quite 
striking.  The  tendency  during  April,  May,  June  and  July  for  1925  and  1926  has 
been  for  Washington  to  hold  shipments  to  a  relatively  higher  level  than  California. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


83 


Prices  of  eggs  on  the  New  York  and  San  Francisco  markets. — 
There  is  a  close  correlation  between  the  prices  of  Pacific  Coast  extras 
on  the  New  York  market  and  those  of  extra  eggs  on  the  San  Francisco 
market,*  although  grades  at  New  York  are  not  strictly  comparable 
with  those  at  San  Francisco.    The  classification  on  the  former  market 


TABLE  44 

Carlot  Movement   of  Eggs   from   Washington,   Oregon,   and   California   to 
Eastern  States,  October,  1924-October,  1926 

Washington  Oregon  California 

1924:                                                                                                      Cars  Cars                     Cars 

October 45  2                           78 

November 70  9                           78 

December 89  14                          122 

1925: 

January 81  19  130 

February 74  21  165 

March  1-28 60  9  96 

March  29-May  2 81  24  55 

May  3-May  30 85  14  51 

May  31-June  27 67  7  54 

June  28-August  1 77  0  82 

August  2-29 49  6  55 

August  30-October  3 54  13  81 

October  4-October  31 64  15  110 

November  1-28 88  24  122 

November  29-December  31 147  45  170 

1926: 

January  1-30 136  46  167 

January  3 1-February  27 94  19  142 

February  28-March  27 80  29  114 

March  28-May  1 88  45  118 

May  2-May  29 91  22  65 

May  30-July  3 106  34  112 

July  3-July  31 65  3  60 

August  1-August  28 61  8  80 

August  28-October  2 101  21  157 

October  3-30 Ill  29  126 

Source  of  data:  Daily  Market  Reports  on  Butter,  Cheese,  Eggs  and  Dressed  Poultry,  issued  from 
San  Francisco  Office,  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics.  Note  that  since  Mar.  1,  1925,  the  periods  have  not 
been  calendar  month  periods.    All  figures  subject  to  revision. 

is  by  the  general  reputation  of  the  brand,  or  the  opinion  of  the  trader, 
rather  than  by  an  official  inspection.  Two  other  grades  of  white 
eggs  on  this  market  are  also  shown  in  figure  33  for  the  period, 
January,  1922-December,  1924.  Beginning  in  January,  1925,  the 
grade  ' '  Firsts  to  extra  firsts ' '  covers  the  two  former  grades  of  ' '  Extra 
firsts"  and  "Firsts."  The  range  between  the  high  and  low  quota- 
tions for  Pacific  Coast  eggs  is  considerable.  The  adoption  of  uniform 
standards  throughout  the  country  would  greatly  facilitate  studies  of 
this  nature. 

*  r  =  .954  for  period  January,  1922-March,  1926. 


84 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


^ 

m    * 

$ 

9° 

•uor 

U    ^ 

&  £ 

pi  - 

+00 

r/fi 

so 

o± 

3£ 

!f> 

/»//»/■»$$ 

^~ 

n/nr^ 

^   e8 

^ 

*H    ** 

•-jd\/ 

o  ~ 

^C? 


^3    X  |2 
O  o 


/oV 


O    <D    X 


-uvp        S 


-  -f-OQ 


■-jd\/ 


uop 


-  4-=>0 


^6£ 

*y 

w  cm  ^ 

ud\/ 

33.— A  c 

From 
1925  the 

'UOf* 

Fig. 
markets, 
while  in 

[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


85 


TABLE  45 

Monthly  Wholesale  White  Egg  Prices  at  New  York- 
Eggs,  1922-1926 

(Cents  per  Dozen) 


-Pacific  Coast  White 


Month 


1922 


Ex- 
tras 


Extra 
Firsts 


Firsts 


1923 


Ex- 
tras 


Extra 
Firsts 


Firsts 


1924 


Ex- 
tras 


Extra 

Firsts 


Firsts 


1925 


Ex- 
tras 


Firsts 

to 
Extra 

Firsts 


1926 


Ex- 
tras 


Firsts 

to 
Extra 

Firsts 


January 

February... 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November. 
December., 


52.75 
47.50 
34.75 
36.25 
36.25 
38.62 
38.87 
43.62 
57.00 
75.50 
79.12 
66.12 


51.12 
45.87 
33.12 
34.37 
32.62 
36.12 
35.62 
39.25 
53.50 
71.00 
73.37 
64.00 


47.62 
43.87 
30.25 
31  12 
30.62 
31.25 
31.25 
34.50 
48.12 
65.12 
68.25 
61.12 


52.62 
44.25 
39.25 
37.87 
38.00 
37.12 
38.87 
44.37 
52.62 
68.00 
74.25 
61.25 


50.50 
42.87 
37.87 
36.12 
35.50 
34.25 
36.00 
42.62 
48.75 
63.25 
69.75 
58.25 


48.37 
41.50 
36.37 
33.12 
32.75 
30.25 
32.75 
38.75 
44.75 
58.25 
65.25 
55.12 


51.00 
44.75 
33.12 
35.00 
34.87 
37.75 
39.87 
47.50 
58.50 
71.62 
76.25 
67.12 


49.12 
42.87 
30.87 
32.75 
32.25 
34.25 
36.87 
44.62 
54.87 
66.12 
71.37 
63.87 


46.87 
39.87 
28.75 
30.25 
30.00 
31.12 
33.50 
40.50 
49.00 
58.75 
64.62 
61.12 


63.26 
47.04 
39.57 
39.42 
40.50 
43.10 
46.34 
47.87 
58.39 
72.10 
75.48 
59.09 


61.52 
44.80 
36.16 
36.34 
37.58 
40.25 
42.26 
43.61 
49.73 
64.25 
64.85 
54 


45.69 

41.21 

38.16 

38.23 

38.64 

40.01 

40.2 

45.52 

54.58 


42.47 
38.47 
35.03 

34.78 


37.81* 
37.05* 
40.54* 
50.1* 


*  Prices  for  Extra  Firsts,  Firsts  not  quoted. 

Source  of  data:    From  March  issues  of  the  New  York  Produce  Review  and  American  Creamery. 
Quotations  are  on  New  York  grades. 


Preference  for  white  and  brown  eggs* — The  preference  for  while 
or  brown  eggs  in  a  city  is  perhaps  dependent  to  a  great  extent  on  the 
type  produced  by  most  of  the  nearby  henneries.  The  "nearbys"  are 
usually  advertised  on  the  market  as  being  the  finest  eggs  available; 
then,  those  from  a  distance  which  most  closely  resemble  "nearbys" 
are  preferred  as  against  the  distant  eggs  of  a  different  type. 

Poultry  production  in  the  vicinity  of  Boston  was  started  in  the 
early  days,  when  specialized  henneries  were  not  thought  of,  and  such 
American  breeds,  as  Wyandottes,  Plymouth  Rocks,  and  Rhode  Island 
Reds,  were  developed  as  representing  the  ideal  breeds.  The  center  of 
activity  for  such  breeds  was  in  the  New  England  territory.  Since  the 
' '  nearby ' '  eggs  in  Boston  were  browns,  no  egg  could  be  represented  as 
being  a  ' '  nearby ' '  unless  it  was  brown ;  consequently,  Boston  began  to 
prefer  the  brown  product,  and  has  continued  to  do  so.  Along  with 
the  preference  for  the  brown  shell  has  continued  a  preference  for  a 
distinct  "eggy"  flavor  and  for  yolks  of  considerable  color,  as  an 
indication  of  richness. 

Later  in  the  development  of  poultry  husbandry,  when  the  industry 
was  taken  up  intensively  in  New  Jersey  and  on  Long  Island,  great 

*  Letter  from  Earl  W.  Benjamin,  General  Manager  and  Treasurer,  Pacific  Egg 
Producers,  New  York  City. 


86  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

henneries  were  operated,  and  the  White  Leghorn  was  soon  recognized 
as  the  most  efficient  egg-producing  breed.  New  York's  supply  of 
"nearbys"  was  largely  white-shelled,  and  nothing  but  these  could  be 
represented  as  "nearbys"  there.  New  York  developed  preference  for 
white-shelled  eggs,  with  the  mild  flavor  and  light  colored  yolk  usually 
found  in  the  product  of  specialized  henneries. 

Florida  markets  prefer  white  shelled  eggs  for  a  similar  reason. 
Many  other  markets,  such  as  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Pittsburgh, 
Cleveland,  and  Chicago,  have  no  particular  preference,  but  fluctuate 
from  one  to  the  other,  according  to  the  type  which  is  being  pushed 
forward  as  the  finest  in  that  particular  market. 


COLD   STORAGE    HOLDINGS 

Shell  eggs. — Refrigeration  not  only  has  brought  distant  areas 
within  reach  of  the  large  centers  of  consumption  but  has  aided  mate- 
rially in  the  distribution  of  poultry  products  throughout  the  year. 
Eggs  start  into  storage  in  the  spring  of  the  year  (fig.  34,  p.  87).  The 
seasonal  variations  in  storage  holding  during  the  ten  years  (1916- 
1926)  for  the  nation  indicate  that  on  March  first  the  stocks  in  storage 
are  almost  nothing — 0.2  per  cent  of  the  normal  August  first  holdings. 
The  storage  movement  for  the  country  begins  in  March;  by  April 
first,  the  stocks  constitute  4  per  cent  of  the  normal  yearly  storage, 
as  of  August  first.  By  far  the  larger  amounts  (over  70  per  cent) 
are  stored  during  April  and  May,  the  months  of  the  largest  receipts 
on  the  nation's  markets.  In  June,  also,  there  is  a  considerable  move- 
ment into  storage  which  continues  through  July  although  withdrawals 
are  also  made  during  this  month.  The  peak  of  the  storage  holdings 
(when  considering  only  the  first  day  of  each  month)  is  August  first. 
With  the  decline  in  receipts  on  the  markets  of  the  country,  storage 
eggs  are  withdrawn.  The  outward  movement  assumes  larger  propor- 
tions in  October,  when  fall  receipts  are  becoming  less,  and  in  November 
and  December  it  is  at  a  maximum.  During  these  two  months  between 
forty  and  fifty  per  cent  of  the  eggs  reported  in  storage  on  August 
first  are  withdrawn.  The  out-of-storage  movement  continues  during 
January,  a  month  of  relatively  low  production  and  receipts,  but  it  is 
not  as  great  as  during  either  November  or  December.  During 
February  storage  removals  are  normally  small  although  they  are  sub- 
ject to  relatively  large  fluctuations,  since  the  product  cannot  very 
well  be  carried  over  into  the  next  storage  season.  At  times  high  levels 
of  winter  storage  holdings  act  as  a  drag  upon  the  market  since  the 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


87 


Seasonal  Variation  in  Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Shell  Eggs,  United  States, 

1916-1926 


OKI* 

ns 

IZb 

73 

SMI 

o 

Fig.  34. — On  March  first  of  each  year  storage  stocks  of  shell  eggs  are  normally 
depleted.  During  the  months  of  April  and  May  over  70  per  cent  of  the  eggs  are 
normally  placed  in  storage.  The  peak  of  the  holdings  is  approximately  August 
first.  Although  there  is  a  decline  in  holdings  from  August  first  to  March  first, 
withdrawals  are  greatest  during  October  and  November.   Data  from  table  49,  p.  91. 


TABLE  46 

Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Eggs  in  the  United  States  on  the  First  Day  of 
Each  Month,  1915-1926 

(Thousand  cases — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

1915 

5,683 
5,600 
6,436 
6,265 
7,685 
6,372 
7,210 
9,608 
9,883 
8,778 
9,863 
9,563 

5,019 

4,868 
5,837 
5,369 
6,858 
5,295 
6,269 
7,924 
8,737 
7,409 
8,606 
8,035 

3,687 
3,985 
4,638 
3,812 
5,087 
3,838 
4,380 
5,726 
6,645 
5,267 
6,320 
5,885 

2,788 

1916 

1,508 

920 

1,300 

740 

1,542 

408 

889 

1,311 

1,927 

1,050 

1,677 

458 
149 
200 
130 
342 

43 
179 
213 
500 

81 
574 

35 
7 
20 
26 
29 
43 
13 
13 
44 
21 
75 

264 
190 
344 
320 
122 

1,926 
950 
453 
569 

1,240 
857 

2,327 

2,105 
2,957 
3,278 
2,135 
4,909 
4,648 
3,737 
3,563 
4,872 
3,717 

4,593 
4,922 
5,499 
6,098 
5,143 
6,844 
8,056 
7,890 
6,875 
7,712 
7,215 

5,574 
6,617 
6,554 
7,659 
6,747 
7,534 
9,811 
10,222 
8,685 
9,482 
9,127 

6,060 
6,895 
6,568 
7,850 
6,872 
7,605 
10,161 
10,509 
9,267 
10,024 
9,845 

2,146 

1917 

2,948 

19i8 

2,071 

1919 

3,341 

1920 

1,824 

1921 

2,403 

1922 

3,257 

1923 

4,028 

1924 

3,102 

1925 

3,780 

1926 

Sources  of  data:    Years  1915-1924,  U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1924,  p.  1000.     Subsequent  figures  from 
monthly  issues  of  The  Agricultural  Situation,  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics. 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Eggs  in  San  Francisco,  1922-1926 


Thousands 


Coses 

4 

* 

\ 

/ 

-I9Z3 

I9Z5-J 

(I9Z4 

/          4 
I           t 
J          / 

/ 
/ 
t 

s 

s 

\ 

> 

V       V 

f          / 

1 
1 
1 

A 

* 

>^>9ZZL 
*> 

\ 

•A 

1     i 
/    / 
/    / 

'A 

S 

\ 

\f 

\ 

/  / 
// 

It        :f 

V 
\ 

i  \ 
\  \ 

/J 

It// 

'19Z6 

\ 

ft 
II 
1     . 

N 

Fig.  35. — In  general  the  seasonal  variation  at  San  Francisco  follows  the  varia- 
tion of  the  nation  as  a  whole  except  that  stocks  are  depleted  earlier  than  in  the 
nation  as  a  whole  and  the  into  storage  movement  is  relatively  more  important 
during  March.  The  early  spring  in  California  accounts  for  this  difference.  Data 
from  table  47. 


TABLE  47 

Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Shell  Eggs,  San  Francisco  on  the  First  Day  of 
Each  Month.     January,  1922-November,  1926 

(Thousand  cases — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Date 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

17 
1 

2 

14 

1 

13 

Feb  1 

1 

1 

Apr.  1 

51 
115 
165 
185 
186 
168 
138 
74 
24 

45 
93 
131 
163 
179 
161 
129 
88 
47 

29 
64 
96 
120 
132 
123 
94 
55 
24 

30 
67 
95 
119 
132 
133 
112 
72 
39 

28 

56 

87 

July  1 

105 

118 

Sept.  1 

Oct.  1 

107 
83 

Nov.  1 

52 

Dec.  1                              

Source  of  data:    Daily  mimeographed  market  reports  on  Butter,  Cheese,  Eggs  and  Dressed  Poultry 
from  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics,  San  Francisco  Office. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


89 


new  storing  season  starts  on  the  first  of  March.  On  March  1,  1926, 
the  holdings  amounted  to  75,000  cases,  a  figure  three  times  as  great 
as  the  five-year  average  (1921-1926)  for  the  same  date.  Normally, 
large  holdovers  exert  a  depressing  effect  upon  the  market.  Weather 
conditions  greatly  affect  production  throughout  the  entire  country 
and  must  always  be  reckoned  with. 

While  the  statements  above  are  true  with  reference  to  the  normal 
movements  during  the  ten  years,  1916-1926,  monthly  holdings  vary 
from  year  to  year.  The  variation  during  the  first  month  of  storage 
activity  is  quite  marked  (table  46,  p.  87).  Likewise,  during  the 
months  of  December,  January,  and  February  there  is  considerable 
variation,  as  the  storage  season  draws  to  a  close. 

Holdings  for  California  points  follow  in  general  the  variation  for 
the  country  as  a  whole.  On  account  of  the  early  spring  the  storage 
season  begins  and  ends  earlier  in  the  year  (compare  tables  46  and  47). 


Seasonal  Variation  in  Holdings  of  Frozen  Eggs,  United  States,  1920-1925 


Fig.  36. — The  movement  of  frozen  eggs  differs  somewhat  from  that  of  shell 
eggs  in  storage.  The  holdings  of  the  former  fluctuate  less  and  are  not  reduced  to 
the  zero  point  but  increase  after  the  flush  season  of  egg  production  in  the  spring. 
The  high  point  is  reached  in  September.     Data  from  table  49,  p.  91. 

Cold  storage  holdings  of  frozen  eggs. — In  the  larger  centers  of 
concentration,  there  always  will  be  found  a  considerable  number  of 
dirty  or  weak  and  cracked  eggs,  which  cannot  be  shipped.  These  are 
often  broken  out  of  the  shell  and  frozen  solid  in  order  to  make  ship- 
ment possible  and  to  check  deterioration.  Since  the  quantity  of  the 
frozen  eggs  in  storage  is  far  less  than  the  holdings  of  shell  eggs,  and 


90 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


since  they  can  be  held  over  from  one  season  to  another,  the  fluctua- 
tions are  not  so  great.  The  stocks,  therefore,  are  never  reduced  to  the 
zero  point.  The  normal  low  point  is  in  April.  There  is  an  increase 
after  the  flush  season  in  the  spring  and  the  high  point  is  reached  in 
September.  A  gradual  decrease  then  occurs  until  the  low  point  is 
reached.  The  imports  of  frozen  eggs  are  of  considerable  importance 
(table  71,  p.  122). 


Net  Cold  Storage  Movement  and  Trade  Eequirements  of  Eggs,  Five  Cities, 

1924-1925 


Fig.  37. — The  etched  portions  of  the  diagram  above  the  O  line  represent  the 
trade  requirements  of  the  San  Francisco,  Chicago,  Philadelphia,  Boston  and  New 
York  markets.  From  August  to  February  these  markets  draw  upon  cold  storage 
holdings  to  supplement  the  receipts  during  these  months.  The  markets  do  not 
require  all  of  the  receipts  during  the  period  of  high  production — March  to  July — 
and  eggs  are  placed  in  storage.  Trade  requirements  during  1924  and  1925  were 
lighter  during  the  summer  months.  Data  based  on  calculations  (weekly)  from 
Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 


Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


91 


TABLE  48 

Frozen  Eggs  in  Storage  on  the  First  Day  of  each  Month  in  the 

United  States,  1920-1926 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Month 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

19,286 
16,394 
13,836 
11,039 
10,529 
13,939 
17,388 
20,055 
21,901 
23,584 
20,461 
29,945 

27,325 
24,927 
22,363 
20,873 
21,730 
26,822 
27,737 
27,952 
27,408 
26,656 
26,114 
22,899 

19,260 
16,209 
12,193 
10,473 
14,154 
18,273 
23,328 
27,855 
34,516 
33,545 
30,523 
26,233 

22,787 
18,517 
14,603 
10,311 
12,921 
20,730 
29,666 
36,192 
37,280 
43,836 
40,424 
36,004 

32,070 
27,683 
23,106 
20,736 
23,707 
29,956 
33,565 
35,184 
34,128 
31,006 
26,633 
22,100 

21,303 
16,289 
11,364 
11,353 
19,579 
29,544 
38,379 
42,855 
47,099 
44,299 
45,314 
39,336 

33,796 

29,267 

March 

24,174 

21,844 

25,656 

34,251 

July 

45,075 

51,810 

52,630 

50,754 

44,986 

Sources  of  data:    Years  1920-1924  furnished  to  author  by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 
1925-1926  obtained  from  the  monthly  issue  of  the  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics  Agricultural  Situation. 
Frozen  Egg  classfication  1926:  Whites  25%,  Yolks  25%,  Mixed  50%  (approximate  percentages). 


TABLE  49 

Seasonal  Variation  in  Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Shell  and  Frozen  Eggs  on 

the  First  Day  of  each  Month.     United  States,  1920-1925 


Indices  of  seasonal  variation 

Month 

Shell  eggs 
I 

Frozen  eggs 
II 

January 

28.96 

4.91 

.43 

9.47 

80  05 

152.21 

189.79 

196.53 

186.59 

162.76 

119.15 

69.19 

95.78 

February 

80.98 

March 

65.69 

April 

57.65 

69  09 

June 

90.23 

July 

113.82 

August 

129.14 

September 

136.93 

October 

133.08 

November 

121.85 

December 

106.27 

Average 

100.0 

100.0 

Source  of  data:    Columns  I  and  II  computed  from  Tables  46  and  48  by  the  method  of  link  relatives. 
Data  in  Column  I  based  on  holdings,  March,  1916-Feb.,  1926;  II  on  holdings  Jan..  1920-Dec,  1925. 


92  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


PRICES   AND    PURCHASING    POWER    OF    CHICKENS 

United  States. — The  trend  of  farm  prices  for  chickens  in  the 
United  States  has  been  upward  since  1910.  Reference  to  figure  38 
will  show  that  the  relative  chicken  prices  and  the  "All  Commodity 
Index"  are  fairly  close  together  until  1916,  when  the  latter  began  to 
climb  more  rapidly.  The  greatest  distance  between  the  two  indices 
was  in  1917.  Conditions  were  more  favorable  during  the  next  three 
years,  and  in  1921  chicken  prices  remained  higher  than  all  commodity 
prices  during  the  depression.  Since  1921  the  purchasing  power  of 
chickens  in  the  United  States  has  been  above  100.  It  should  be  noted 
that  the  base  used  in  computing  the  chicken  price  relatives  is  August, 
1909-July,  1914,  while  the  "All  Commodity  Index"  used  is  based 
upon  the  period  January,  1910-December,  1914  (columns  I  and  II, 
table  50;  column  III  based  upon  calendar  years  1910-1914). 

TABLE  50 

Relative  Wholesale  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Chickens  in  the 

United  States,  1910-1925 

Relative  prices  Purchasing  power 

Year                                             I  II                     III* 

1910 103  100                       98 

1911 94  99                       98 

1912 96  95                       96 

1913 104  102                     102 

1914 106  106                     105 

1915 103  100                     101 

1916 116  90                       93 

1917 145  80                       84 

1918 181  92                       98 

1919 207  99                       99 

1920 220  -           96                       94 

1921 182  122                     120 

1922 166  110                     108 

1923 164  105                     104 

1924 167  110                     110 

1925 177  109                    110 

*  Based  upon  calendar  years  1910-1914. 

Source  of  data:  Relative  price  from  the  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics  Supplement  to  the  Agri- 
cultural Situation,  June,  1925,  and  subsequent  numbers  of  the  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics  Agricul- 
tural Situation.  Purchasing  power  computed  by  dividing  relative  price  by  all  commodity  index  (Bureau 
of  Labor  Statistics). 

Prices  and  purchasing  power  of  Leghorn  hens,  small  broilers  and 
fryers  at  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles. — It  is  difficult  to  compare 
the  trends  in  prices  and  in  purchasing  power  of  Leghorn  hens,  small 
broilers,  and  fryers  on  the  California  markets  with  the  chicken  prices 
in  the  entire  country.  While  the  statistics  for  the  relative  prices  of 
chickens  in  the  United  States  are  based  on  weighted  figures,  this  is  not 
possible  for  California  because  of  a  lack  of  sufficient  data  on  produc- 
tion and  receipts.  For  local  price  studies  on  poultry,  Leghorn  hens, 
small  broilers,  and  fryers  have  been  selected,  as  they  are  perhaps  of 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


93 


most  interest  to  the  California  poultry-man.  Prices  are  based  on  the 
wholesale  quotations  at  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  throughout 
the  year.  Hence,  the  average  price  per  year  is  the  average  of  twelve 
monthly  averages  although  a  large  percentage  of  one  grade  may  be 
sold  from  the  farms  during  three  or  four  months  of  the  year.  Data 
are  comparatively  incomplete  for  San  Francisco  on  account  of  changes 
in  the  methods  of  reporting  quotations.  For  monthly  prices,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  tables  51  to  57. 


s> 


CO  \* 

9>         5> 


Kelative  Prices  of  Chickens  and  All  Commodities,  United  States,  1910-1925 

5^^to^!ovsb-$S>8 
2)       2>       g>       O)       9>       §>       Si 

240 


Z30 

zzo 

zto 

200 
190 
/SO 
170 
160 
150 
140 
130 
120 

tto 
too 

00 
80 


Fig.  38. — In  the  United  States  as  a  whole  the  relative  prices  of  chickens  and 
all  commodities  index  were  not  far  apart  from  1910  to  1915.  In  1916  the  all 
commodities  climbed  more  rapidly  than  the  chicken  prices.  In  the  depression  in 
1921  the  former  declined  more  rapidly  than  the  latter.  Since  1921  the  purchasing 
power  of  chickens  in  the  country  as  a  whole  has  been  favorable.*  Data  from 
table  50,  p.  92. 

*  Equation  for  the  line  of  trend  is  y  =  98.56  +  .177  x,  origin  January  1,  1918. 


fir/Ct 

All 

*  Tna 
7omn 

locfh 

■/es~- 

// 

\ 

/l 
/  1 

/ 

/   1 

1 
1 

\\ 
\\ 

1 
1 

/ 

\  \ 
\  \ 

I  \ 

\ 

1 

1 
1 
/ 

\ 
\ 
V 

/ 

/ 

\ 

»^ 

^~ 

t 

"  / 
/ 
/ 

i 

/ 
1 

h- 

rP, 

-fee 
i/'cke 

Tnd, 
ns  C( 

ex 
1.5.) 

1 

i 

i 

* 

/ 

/ 

/ 
/ 

\ 
\ 

/' 

/ 

^ 

s 

<f 

^» 

r 

*+-£ 

>jS 

\ 

> 

S 

"^ 

f  \ 

Sect 

>lar 

Trer 

d 

Pur 
Chi, 

chat 
-ken 

ing 
5    (L 

Pow 

s/~ 

N 

/ 

/ 

Pur. 
Chic 

Pot, 
kent 

/er  , 
r  (U. 

5.) 

1 — "~" 

' 

I 

■ 

7==^. 

I 

— 

f " 

' 1 

94 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


h<!2 


s»s 


GGh3 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


95 


02 

o 

< 

E-i 
O 
P 

w 


&  -d  23  +-> 

9 

h    ?    1   ,rl 

0>    £  <M       . 

rO     O   CQ     5 

•^^05     ^ 

J 

os  MrH^ 

BJ 

Sl?s 

+j'2  Oi 

®  S  3  *? 

8> 

0) 

B?^ 

rd               ^ 

^gg-S'A 

Si 

§  1  ^  .  - 

•  d   ^            03  t- 

5 

•^,£5    TO             ^ 

•  9    _    n    S  ° 

rt       »h 

SS 

.5P"S  ."B    TO  O 

5 

^^2    0^0 

rrt    Ej    ti    n       * 

O   o  c3   oo 

TO  £    *»     C   •"* 

h  to  .,  Qj  . 
©    O    §    ^  rt, 

w  o      ^  m 

c  bc.S  d  w 

s§ 

J3  t!    P    W-w 

J3 

P-.  '•*  -3  §  - 

W2     Gj     r>           ^H 

-p.h    a)   ^ 

OS      BO    4J     Cj     TO 

* 

Vi 

a  S  g5   . 

I    o>  d 


goo 

•  m     ■■    O    b'O 

Pn   cs  -d        2 

§    kX>2"£ 

XiJcH  ft 


Ci     bJD 


96  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  increase  in  the  poultry  flocks  of  the  state  has  been  confined 
almost  entirely  to  Leghorns.  Unquestionably,  an  enormous  increase 
has  taken  place  in  the  volume  of  Leghorn  hens,  small  broilers,  and 
fryers  sent  to  market.  This  increase  in  volume  is  reflected  in  the 
relatively  small  increase  over  pre-war  prices,  which  have  prevailed 
during  the  past  three  years.  The  purchasing  power  of  poultry  in 
California  does  not  compare  favorably  with  that  in  the  United  States 
as  a  whole. 

The  data  available  offer  some  interesting  comparisons  of  prices, 
however.  From  1905  to  1920  broilers  commanded  a  higher  average 
yearly  price  on  the  Los  Angeles  market  than  fryers.  In  1920  this 
position  was  reversed  and  fryers  were  quoted  higher.  Again  in  1923 
broilers  reached  a  higher  average.  This  lead  was  maintained  until 
1924  when  both  averages  moved  together  for  a  year.  During  1925, 
however,  fryers  declined  rapidly.  Poultrymen  would  do  well  to  take 
cognizance  of  this  variation.  During  the  period  for  which  data  are 
available,  Leghorn  hens  show  a  relatively  lower  price  than  either 
fryers  or  broilers.  The  calculations  for  seasonal  fluctuation  (table  59, 
p.  104)  are  based  on  a  six-year  period  for  which  complete  data  are 
available.  A  casual  inspection  of  figure  39  reveals  the  fact  that  espe- 
cially since  1917  have  seasonal  fluctuations  in  price  been  marked  when 
compared  with  the  years  1907-1917.  The  great  activity  in  culling 
during  the  past  few  years  undoubtedly  has  had  much  to  do  with  the 
decided  drop  during  the  summer  months. 

Unlike  the  trends  for  chicken  prices  for  the  country  as  a  whole,  the 
purchasing  power  of  both  Leghorn  hens  and  broilers  has  been  down- 
ward on  the  Los  Angeles  market.  The  downward  movement  started 
in  1916  and  only  once  since  that  time  (1921)  has  the  purchasing  power 
been  favorable.  Leghorn  hens  held  up  better  in  purchasing  power 
than  broilers  until  1923  when  broilers  were  at  an  advantage.  This 
condition  prevailed  during  1924,  but  in  1925  the  relative  prices  for 
Leghorn  hens  again  exceeded  that  for  broilers.  The  quotations  given 
for  Leghorn  hens  are  for  No.  l's.  Unfortunately,  the  hens  sold  are 
not  all  No.  1  's.  The  results  show  that  with  this  particular  grade  there 
has  been  but  little  improvement  in  returns  to  the  grower — although 
1926  (first  nine  months)  shows  a  decided  improvement.  For  all  hens 
sold,  however,  there  has  been  an  improvement  in  the  returns  during 
the  past  three  years.  Owing  to  the  work  of  improving  breeding  stock 
primarily  through  the  activities  of  the  accredited  hatchery,  the  per- 
centage of  off -grade  hens  tends  constantly  to  decline.* 


*  Information  from  M.  A.  Schofield,  Los  Angeles,  Oct.  30,  1926. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


97 


Comparative  quotations  are  also  difficult  to  give  on  Leghorn  hens 
because  the  weight  requirements  on  the  Los  Angeles  Produce 
Exchange  vary   from  year  to  year   and   may  vary  from   month  to 


Price  Index  and  Purchasing  Power,  Broilers  and  Leghorn  Hens 

Los  Angeles 


Fig.  41. — From  1910  to  1914  the  prices  of  Leghorn  hens  and  broilers  were 
fairly  constant.  In  1915  while  the  relative  prices  of  both  hens  and  broilers 
declined  the  purchasing  power  of  both  declined  still  more  rapidly.  In  spite  of  the 
fact  that  the  relative  prices  of  both  hens  and  broilers  increased  from  1915  to  1919 
the  prices  were  not  favorable  to  the  poultryman  as  the  purchasing  power  declined. 
1921  was  a  favorable  year  for  the  poultryman  as  the  purchasing  power  went 
above  100.  Since  1921  there  has  been  not  only  a  decline  in  the  relative  price  but 
also  a  decline  in  purchasing  power.     Data  from  table  53,  p.  99. 

month.  Three  or  four  years  ago  (1922-1923)  off-grade  hens  sold  for 
as  low  as  11  cents  per  pound.  At  that  time  27  per  cent  of  the  hens 
received  on  the  Los  Angeles  marked  weighed  less  than  3  pounds,  some 
as  low  as  2.5  pounds.     At  the  present  time  the  percentage  is  much 


98 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


lower  and  this  has  produced  more  favorable  returns  to  the  grower 
owing  to  a  lesser  quantity  of  off-grade  product.  The  demand  for 
Leghorn  hens  in  Los  Angeles  is  much  improved  compared  with  1922 
and  1923. f  Although  the  complete  data  for  fryers  are  not  available, 
an  inspection  of  figure  39  indicates  that  fryers  have  undoubtedly 
followed  broilers  fairly  closely. 

On  account  of  a  change  in  the  method  of  reporting  the  wholesale 
prices  of  poultry  at  San  Francisco,  comparable  quotations  on  small 

TABLE  51 
Monthly  Wholesale  Price  Quotations  of  Broilers,  Los  Angeles,  1910-1926 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Month 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1925 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar... 

Apr 

May 

June .... 

July 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct 

24.7 

25.7 

30. 

30. 

26.2 

18.8 

16.7 

17. 

17. 

24.8 
24 

*24.9 
25.7 
27. 
27.7 
22.9 
18.3 
15  5 
15. 
14 

16.7 
19.2 
21  5 

21  5 

22.2 

25. 

27. 

32. 

23.5 

19. 

18.3 

19.5 

18.6 

22.3 

25. 

25.3 

23.1 

27.6 

27.5 

27. 

29.4 

25.1 

20.1 

25  4 

20.5 

20.7 

24  5 

25. 

25.2 

26. 

23. 

30. 

30.2 

27. 

22.2 

15  4 

16.2 

19  4 

21. 

23  5 

25.2 

26. 

26. 

27. 

28.2 

20.4 

15.2 

17. 

17. 

19.2 

21.2 

23  2 

25. 

25.7 
28.5 
31.2 
25.2 
21.4 
17.1 

14  5 

15  8 
19  8 
23. 
23.2 
24.1 

24.7 
29.4 
33.3 
28.4 

20  8 

21  1 
18.6 
19.6 
25.2 
30.7 
32  3 
34  2 

34.4 
35.6 

36  2 

33  4 
26.7 
27.2 
28.1 
32  2 

34  5 
37 
39. 
39. 

41  5 
42.4 
46. 
35  3 

32.9 

25.6 

26.9 

27. 

32.4 

40.6 

44 .7 

38. 

32 
40 
41 
31 
28 
25 
27 
31 
36 
40 
41 
43 

9 

6 

7 
1 
5 

7 
5 

2 
9 
1 

43  5 

52.2 

41.8 

31. 

24.4 

24.9 

27.6 

30.8 

35.5 

39.2 

40. 

39. 

34.7 

37.5 

41.5 

28  5 

29.2 

24.7 

26.7 

25.9 

32. 

36. 

36. 

30.5 

30. 

36.7 

39.4 

33. 

25.9 

26.6 

25. 

29.8 

34.7 

39. 

39. 

35.2 

33.6 

38.5 

39. 

32. 

29. 

26.6 

26.5 

29.7 

33. 

34.2 

35. 

27. 

27. 

33. 

33. 

26. 

22. 

21.1 

21.5 

27.2 

36. 

37. 

36. 

30. 

29.2 

29.0 
35.5 
38  0 
30  5 
26.8 
25.2 
24.0 
27.4 
24  4 
35.5 

Dec 

Av 

23.2 

24.8 

23.7 

22.1 

22.5 

26.5 

33.6 

36.1 

35 

35.8 

32. 

32.9 

32. 

*  Estimate. 

Source  of  data:  Weekly  quotations  have  been  obtained  from  the  California  Cultivator.  The 
monthly  quotation  has  been  computed  by  the  author  from  the  arithmetic  mean  of  the  weekly  quota- 
tions.   The  average  for  the  year  is  a  simple  arithmetic  mean  of  the  twelve  monthly  quotations. 


broilers  and  fryers  are  available  since  1912  only,  while  the  quotations 
on  Leghorn  hens  are  comparable  only  since  1918. 

The  prices  on  the  San  Francisco  market  show  the  same  general 
trends  as  those  at  Los  Angeles.  From  1912  until  1919,  prices  for 
small  broilers  were  above  those  for  fryers ;  since  1919,  there  has  been 
an  alternating  movement  between  small  broiler  and  fryer  prices  of 
from  one  to  two  years'  duration.  Leghorn  hen  prices  have  shown  less 
of  a  tendency  to  fluctuate  during  the  past  three  years  than  from 
1918  to  1922. 

With  1913  as  a  base,  the  relative  prices  of  fryers  and  small  broilers 
show  a  decline  (table  58,  p.  103).  Leghorn  hen  prices  would 
undoubtedly  show  the  same  movement  if  data  were  available. 

t  Information  from  M.  A.  Schofield,  Los  Angeles,  California. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


99 


TABLE  52 
Monthly  Wholesale  Price  Quotations  of  Fryers,  Los  Angeles,   1910-1926 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Month 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May 

June .... 
July 

19. 

20.5 

28. 

28. 

24. 

17. 

22. 

27. 

23.7 

24. 

20.8 

17.0 

13.7 

12. 

13. 

12.8 

14.5 

16.2 

19.7 

22. 

25. 

23.7 

22.7 

22.2 

19  5 

18.6 

17.9 

17. 

17.3 

20. 

20.7 

22.2 

24  5 

27. 

26.5 

21.7 

20.5 

19.9 

20. 

24. 

24.8 

27. 

23. 

18.2 

15. 

17.4 

16.5 

19.2 

20. 

20. 

22. 

22.4 

24.5 

24.4 

19.2 

17. 

15.7 

15.8 

16. 

15.2 

18. 

18. 

24 .2 

25 

28. 

25.6 

24. 

17. 

15  4 

16.7 

20. 

20.2 

20.7 

22.8 

26.9 

32.6 

31  5 

26.2 

24.7 

22. 

22.8 

23. 

26. 

27.5 

27.5 

27.8 

32.5 

33. 

36. 

31  6 

30.5 

31. 

30. 

30. 

32. 

33. 

33. 

35 

35.7 

42. 

42. 

35. 

30  5 

30.2 

25  5 

29.2 

31.4 

33. 

35.6 

35. 

38.7 

40. 

40. 

39.2 

32.7 

32. 

32. 

33.6 

34.7 

38.5 

40. 

40. 

50. 

55. 

48. 

42.5 

35. 

32.2 

27.8 

29.5 

30. 

30. 

32.5 

35 

38. 

45. 

40. 

34  4 

30. 

31.7 

29.2 

28.7 

27.5 

26.4 

26. 

32.7 

28. 

34  2 

37.7 

40. 

34. 

31  5 

28.7 

25. 

25. 

28. 

29.5 

30. 

32. 

37.2 

38. 

38. 

35. 

32. 

32. 

28.5 

25. 

25. 

30. 

29.2 

27. 

31.3 

33. 

33. 

28. 

25.6 

24. 

24. 

24. 

24. 

24. 

24. 

26.8 

30.0 
35.0 
40.0 
40.0 
32.0 
36  0 
27.0 

24.4 

Sept 

Oct. . 

17.5 

25.0 
26.2 

Dec 

Av.  ... 

20.2 

19.2 

21.2 

26.1 

31.7 

33.8 

36.4 

37.7 

31.0 

31.8 

Source  of  data:  Weekly  quotations  have  been  obtained  from  the  California  Cultivator.  The 
monthly  quotation  has  been  computed  by  the  author  from  the  arithmetic  mean  of  the  weekly  quota- 
tions.   The  average  for  the  year  is  a  simple  arithmetic  mean  of  the  twelve  monthly  quotations. 


TABLE  53 

Monthly  Wholesale  Price  Quotations  of  Leghorn  Hens,  Los  Angeles, 

1910-1926 


(Cents  per  pound) 


Month 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

23.2 
24.5 
23.3 

23. 

20.5 

16. 

15. 

15  5 

18. 

18.6 

19.5 

19. 

1925 

1926 

Jan 

Feb 

18.7 

19.4 

20. 

20. 

17.6 

15  6 

16 

16.9 

17.7 

17. 

17.6 

17  1 

16. 

16.7 

18.2 

18.9 

14.2 

13.7 

13.5 

14.1 

14  5 

14  5 

14.1 

13.5 

14  1 
14. 
15. 

15  2 
15. 
13. 
13.5 
15  5 
16.1 
16.1 
16.6 
16.1 

15. 

14.7 

15. 

15.7 

16.4 

15.7 

15  3 

15. 

15  4 

16.7 

16.5 

16.6 

17. 

19.2 

20. 

19.5 

17.5 

15.7 

16.2 

16. 

16.3 

16.1 

16.5 

16  5 

16.5 

15.2 

16.5 

16.6 

16.5 

14.4 

13.7 

13.9 

14.1 

15. 

15.9 

16. 

16.7 

16.2 

16.5 

18. 

17.5 

17.4 

13.5 

14.7 

16.3 

16.5 

16.7 

16.6 

18.6 

20. 

22.5 

20.7 

17.1 

16.7 

12.5 

15.6 

14.6 

21.2 

23.3 

23.7 

24.7 
26.5 

31. 

31. 

33.2 

35.1 

34.7 

30.6 

27.8 

26.5 

29.4 

31.6 

32  5 

32.6 

31.3 

34.7 

35. 

35. 

34.2 

29.4 

22  5 

21.8 

24.2 

26.9 

29.3 

33.7 

30. 

34. 

35. 

35. 

25.9 

22.7 

21.9 

19.1 

25.8 

25  1 

27. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

27. 

27. 

25.7 

22.2 

18.2 

17.2 

17. 

19. 

22. 

24.8 

20. 

24. 

25.5 

23 

24.7 

22.2 

19.6 

18.1 

18.8 

22.5 

21. 

22  5 

23. 

19. 

20.3 

22. 

22. 

22. 

18. 

16.5 

16.2 

21. 

22.2 

24.4 

23.5 

23  6 

23.6 
22.0 
24.8 

Apr 

May 

June  . 

July 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct 

24.9 

23.4 

21.9 

22.5 

25.2 

27.3 

29. 

29.5 

25.5 
23.7 
20.3 
19.1 
19.5 
21  3 
23.2 

Dec... 

Av 

17.8 

15.2 

15.0 

15.7 

17.2 

15.4 

16.4 

18.9 

25  5 

29.7 

26.9 

22.3 

22.1 

19.7 

Source  of  data:  Weekly  quotations  have  been  obtained  from  the  California  Cultivator.  The 
monthly  quotation  has  been  computed  by  the  author  from  the  arithmetic  mean  of  the  weekly  quota- 
tions.   The  average  for  the  year  is  a  simple  arithmetic  mean  of  the  twelve  monthly  quotations. 


100 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  54 

Wholesale  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Broilers  and  Leghorn  Hens, 
Los  Angeles,  1904-1925 


All 

Commodity 

Index 

I 

Leghorn  Hens 

Broilers 

Year 

Price  per 

pound 

II 

Relative 
price 
III 

Relative 

value 

IV 

Price  per 

pound 

V 

Relative 

price 

VI 

Relative 
value 
VII 

1904 

87.2 

87.8 

90.2 

95.2 

91.8 

98.7 

102.7 

94.7 

100.9 

101.8 

99.9 

102  6 

129  0 

180.3 

197.7 

210.1 

230.2 

149.6 

151  5 

156  5 

152.4 

162.0 

13.6 
13.8 
13.7 
13.8 
12.9 
15.7 
17.8 
15  2 

15  0 
15.7 
17.2 
15.4 

16  4 
18  9 
25  5 
31  3 
29.7 
26.9 
22 .3 
22  1 
19.7 
20  6 

84 

85 

85 

85 

80 

97 

106 

94 

93 

97 

106 

95 

101 

117 

158 

1C4 

184 

166 

138 

137 

122 

127 

96 
97 
94 
89 
87 
98 

103 
99 
92 
95 

106 
93 
78 
65 
80 
92 
80 

111 
91 
88 
80 
78 

1905. 

17  4 
17.6 
19.8 
20.3 
22  3 
23.2 
21.5 
23.1 
24  8 
23.7 
22.1 
22  5 
26.5 
33.6 
36.1 
35.0 
35.8 
31.9 
32.9 
32.0 
29.2 

75 

76 

85 

87 

96 

100 

90 

99 

107 

102 

95 

97 

114 

144 

155 

151 

154 

137 

141 

138 

126 

86 
84 
89 
95 
97 

1906..  . 

1907.. 

1908 

1909 

1910 

97 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1E14 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

95 
98 
105 
102 
93 
75 
63 
73 
74 
66 
103 
91 
90 
91 
78 

Sources  of  data:  Column  I,  Bureau  of  Labor  Index  converted  to  a  5-year  base  (1910-1914),  published 
in  the  Supplement  to  the  Agricultural  Situation,  June,  1925,  pp.  54-62.  Columns  II  and  V,  computed 
from  arithmetic  mean  of  weekly  wholesale  quotations  in  the  California  Cultivator.  Columns  III  and 
VI,  average  1910-1914  =  100.  Columns  IV  and  VII,  relative  prices  deflated  by  the  All  Commodity  Index. 
The  term  relative  value  is  used  to  denote  purchasing  power. 


TABLE  55 
Monthly  Wholesale  Price  Quotations  on  Small  Broilers,  San  Francisco, 

1912-1926 


(Cents  per 

pound) 

Month 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

28.4 
31.2 
34  0 
31.7 
23.2 
18.5 
20.3 
23.7 
23.7 
22.2 
23  1 
22.4 

25.9 
26.4 
30.9 
31.5 
28.7 
21.7 
22.9 
24.7 
24.5 
24 .2 
25.7 
28.1 

27.5 
28.0 
32  5 
31.2 
23.9 
19.2 
19.1 
19.2 
20.7 
21.5 
22.5 
26.4 

24.5 
26.0 

28.5 
28.6 
24.1 
20.4 
21.5 
27.1 
27.2 
23.1 
35  6 
33.6 

27.2 

31 .2 
37  0 
42  0 
33.2 
23.0 
21.0 
20.5 
21.6 
26.4 
27.5 
27.0 
27.0 

29.0 
31.5 
35.2 
36.6 
28.3 
23.5 
23.9 
27.1 
30.1 
33.4 
41 .6 
41.0 

31.8 

45.4 
51.6 
50.0 
41.6 
38.4 
34.2 
38.8 
43.4 
47.0 
47.2 
47.2 
44.7 

46.6 
51.7 
52.6 
38.1 
34.6 
30.2 
32.9 
32.0 
31.1 
36.3 
41.0 
36.8 

38.4 
45.6 
47.5 
40.1 
30.7 
29.0 
33.4 
39.5 
47.6 
55.1 
60.1 
51.6 

53  4 
61.9 
52.0 
34.1 
28.4 
26.6 
31.5 
34.3 
39.0 
48.7 
49.3 
37.9 

41  4 

36.5 
37.7 
40.9 
30.0 
28.5 
23.7 
24.5 
26.5 
28.5 
29.5 
34.0 
27.5 

31.4 
45.7 
42.4 
37.0 
26.7 
22.0 
23.6 
26.0 
33.0 
36.1 
35.2 
34.5 

36.1 
40.1 
43.0 
36.4 
27.7 
26.1 
26.5 
29.2 
36.2 
37.6 
37.7 
39.1 

38.1 
38.5 
37.6 
29.1 
21.7 
22.0 
24.7 
28.4 
36.2 
34.7 
34.9 
33.6 

33.8 

36  3 

36.1 

28.0 

23.6 

22.8 

July 

25.6 

27  5 

34  9 

36  6 

Average 

25.2 

26.3 

24.3 

28.1 

44  1 

38.7 

43.2 

30.7 

32.8 

34.6 

31.6 

Source  of  data:  Weekly  quotations  have  been  obtained  from  the  Pacific  Rural  Press.  The  monthly 
quotation  has  been  computed  by  the  author  from  the  arithmetic  mean  of  the  weekly  quotations.  The 
average  for  the  year  is  a  simple  arithmetic  mean  of  the  twelve  monthly  quotations. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


101 


Seasonal  Variations  in  Wholesale  Prices  of  Broilers,  Fryers,  and  Leghorn 

Hens,  Los  Angeles 


/so 

140 
130 

IZO 

/to 

100 
90 
80 

j 

S* 

\~~ 



< 

f^ryt 

?rs 

19/5 

-  I9Z 

5" 

£»-< 

V 

Broilers    I9i5-/&Z5-'/ 

'            4 

• 

Han 

hori 

S   191 

7 

9  ~/9a 

'5\ 

v.. 

***s» 

X 

\, 

— 

— 

"■•■ — 

s 

N 

~> 

» 

•  ^ 

^f~*" 

— 

s.. 

^ 

nC. 

. — 

~-- 

-•*~' 

TO 
60 

n 

- 

■■  r  - 

Fig.  42. — Leghorn  hens  are  comparatively  low  in  price  during  the  months  of 
June,  July,  August,  and  September.  The  high  indices  have  been  in  February  and 
March.  The  effect  of  the  large  number  of  broilers  on  the  market  can  be  noted 
especially  from  April  to  September.  The  volume  of  fryers  come  to  market  later 
than  the  broilers  and  the  low  indices  occur  from  June  to  January.  Data  from 
table  54. 


TABLE  56 
Monthly  Wholesale  Price  Quotations  on  Fryers,  San  Francisco,  1912-1926 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Month 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

35.4 
33.9 
34.7 
40.6 
37.5 
30.4 
27.5 
26.4 
29.7 
27.6 
28.0 
23.4 

31.8 

1926 

January 

20.0 
22.5 
29.5 
26.9 
21.1 
19.0 
21.1 
23.0 
21.0 
20.4 
20.5 
18.1 

21.2 
22.7 
25.7 
26.4 
27.7 
23.4 
23.3 
24.5 
24.0 
22.0 
18.5 
19.6 

21.0 

22.2 
25.5 
25.0 
25.2 
21.9 
20.5 
19.5 
20.1 
19.2 
18.5 
19.5 

19.5 
19.5 
19.9 
24.2 
28.1 
24.1 
22.2 
22.9 
20.5 
18.2 
22.4 
22.3 

22.2 
24.5 
28.9 
34.4 
2.8.0 
26.5 
21.5 
21.0 
23.9 
22.7 
21.0 
21.9 

25.7 
25.6 
30.2 
36.5 
34.4 
29.0 
27.5 
27.3 
28.6 
28.0 
30.2 
30.5 

35.2 
39.7 
45.6 
51.2 
49.2 
40.4 
39.0 
36.6 
38.4 
32.6 
37.2 
35.0 

40.0 
41.7 
46.5 
51.3 
50.5 
39.0 
35.3 
32.2 
30.7 
32.0 
32.7 
33.3 

37.6 
43.6 
52.9 
56.5 
51.3 
39.5 
32.5 
38.4 
41.2 
38.5 
39.9 
40.6 

40.5 
45.9 
50.5 
52.5 
48.7 
41.7 
35.2 
33.2 
31.5 
31.5 
31.0 
31.0 

31.0 
33.4 
41.9 
40.7 
47.5 
44.2 
37.0 
30.8 
27.0 
26.2 
26.0 
24.1 

24.2 
34.1 
34.7 
38.0 
37.6 
32.4 
31.2 
29.1 
28.9 
25.9 
24.2 
24.0 

27.8 
30.1 
38.5 
43.6 
41.1 
33.1 
29.5 
28.0 
29.2 
25.0 
30.1 
30.2 

32.3 

31.3 
35  1 
38.4 
37.1 
35.8 
30.5 
29.5 
26.8 
28.9 
27.9 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

Average 

21.9 

23.3 

21.5 

22.0 

24.7 

29.5 

40.0 

38.8 

42.7 

39.4 

34.2 

30.4 

Source  of  data:  Weekly  quotations  have  been  obtained  from  the  Pacific  Rural  Press.  The  monthly 
quotation  has  been  computed  by  the  author  from  the  arithmetic  mean  of  the  weekly  quotations.  The 
average  for  the  year  is  a  simple  arithmetic  mean  of  the  twelve  monthly  quotations. 


102 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  57 

Monthly  Wholesale  Price  Quotations  on  Leghorn  Hens   (Large), 
San  Francisco,  1918-1926  ' 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Month 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

January 

37.5 
38  4 
39 .0 
40  3 
37.0 
34.5 
29.2 
30.0 
30.5 
31.5 
31.6 
32.1 

37.7 
40.3 
40.8 
41  5 
34  0 
24.4 
23.4 
26.2 
27.5 
30.2 
32.5 
32.7 

37.4 
36.0 
35.0 
28.7 
24.5 
23  9 
23.4 
27.9 
29.0 
28.9 
28.7 
28.5 

27.4 
27.2 
24.0 
22.0 
21.8 
20.2 
18.9 
17.0 
18.6 
21.0 
22.1 
22.1 

21.7 
21.8 
19.9 
20.2 
22.1 
18.2 
18.0 
17.1 
19.0 
21.2 
23.2 
22.2 

21.9 

21.6 
22.0 
22.2 
21.2 
17.9 
17.1 
17.2 
19.2 
20.7 
21.0 
23.0 

23.1 
23.0 
22.7 
22.7 
23.4 
23.0 
22.4 
21.1 
21.9 
23.7 
25.0 
24.8 

22  8 

February 

23  4 

March 

23  8 

April 

24  1 

May 

28.5 
26.4 
27.0 
29.7 
32.4 
34.1 
36.5 
33.1 

24  4 

23  5 

July 

22  5 

21  5 

23  1 

23  5 

November 

December 

34.3 

32.6 

29.3 

21.9 

20.4 

20.4 

23.1 

Source  of  data:  Weekly  quotations  have  been  obtained  from  the  Pacific  Rural  Press.  The  monthly 
quotation  has  been  computed  by  the  author  from  the  arithmetic  mean  of  the  weekly  quotations.  The 
average  for  the  year  is  a  simple  arithmetic  mean  of  the  twelve  monthly  quotations. 


Seasonal  Variations  in  Wholesale  Prices  of  Small  Broilers,  Fryers  and 
Large  Leghorn  Hens,  San  Francisco 


/SO 

mo 

130 
/SO 

no 
/oo 

90 


s/ 

^^-<: 

1915  -  /9 

IS 

>•/ 

\ 

Srrra//    Bi 
/9I5  -  /9i. 

■otters 

^ 

,<r~ 

\ 

*~-.^> 

\ 

\ 

^ 

■ ^ 

^ 

Large    L 
Hens    19 

eghorn 
9  -  I9Z5 

\ 

-»^^_ 

x^-"""*" 

*"^"      .**'" 
.<•" 

*»^« 

_.-^ 

^^^ 

— — — 



T n _^ } ! 

\ 


I 


I 


Fig.  43. — Large  Leghorn  hens  have  less  of  a  range  in  quotations  than  either 
small  broilers  or  fryers.  June,  July,  August,  and  September  are  the  months  of 
comparatively  low  prices.  Small  broilers  show  a  considerable  range  of  variation, 
being  25  per  cent  above  the  normal  year's  quotation  in  March  and  over  27  per  cent 
below  in  June.  The  peak  in  the  quotations  for  fryers  is  in  April  while  the  low 
point  comes  in  October.     Data  from  table  59,  p.  104. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


103 


TABLE  58 

Wholesale  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Small  Broilers  and  Fryers, 
San  Francisco,  1912-1925 


All 

Commodity 

Index 

I 

Small  broilers 

Fryers 

Year 

Price  per 

pound 

II 

Relative 
price 
III 

Relative 

value 

IV 

Price  per 

pound 

V 

Relative 

price 

VI 

Relative 
value 
VII 

1912 

99 
100 

98 
101 
127 
177 
194 
206 
226 
146 
149 
154 
150 
159 

25.2 
26.3 
24  3 
27.2 
28.1 
31  8 
44  1 
38.7 
43.2 
41.4 
30.7 
32.8 
34  6 
31.6 

96 
100 

92 
103 
107 
121 
168 
147 
164 
157 
117 
125 
132 
120 

97 
100 
94 
102 
84 
68 
87 
71 
73 
108 
79 
81 
88 
76 

21.9 
23.3 
21  5 
22.0 
24.7 
29.5 
40.0 
38.8 
42.7 
39.4 
34.2 
30.4 
32.3 
31.8 

94 
100 
92 
95 
106 
127 
172 
167 
183 
169 
147 
130 
139 
136 

95 

1913 

100 

1914 

94 

1915 

94 

1916 

84 

1917 

72 

1918 

89 

1919 

81 

1920 

81 

1921 

116 

1922 

99 

1923 

84 

1924 

93 

1925 

86 

Sources  of  data:  Column  I,  All  Commodity  Index,  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1913  =  100.  Columns 
II  and  V,  see  Tables  55,  p.  100,  and  56,  p.  101.  Columns  III  and  VI,  1913  =  100.  Columns  IV  and  VII, 
relative  prices  deflated  by  the  All  Commodity  Index  as  modified  for  1913.  The  term  value  is  used  to 
denote  purchasing  power. 

Seasonal  variation  in  price — Leghorn  hens,  small  broilers  and 
fryers. — On  the  basis  of  wholesale  quotations  for  seven  years  at  Los 
Angeles,  March  stands  out  as  the  high  month  for  Leghorn  hens,  and 
July  as  the  low.  From  October  to  May  the  price  has  been  above 
normal  and  from  June  to  September,  below.  The  decline  continues 
from  March  to  July,  being  greatest  from  May  to  June.  The  culling 
season  brings  large  numbers  of  hens  to  the  market  during  the  summer 
months.  A  gradual  increase  in  the  relative  price  occurs  from  July  to 
November,  when  a  secondary  peak  is  reached,  December  being  lower 
than  November.  From  November  to  March  there  is  another  increase. 
These  indices  show  what  has  happened,  and  should  not  be  regarded  as 
infallible  guides  to  the  future  (fig.  42). 

Wholesale  prices  on  Leghorn  hens  at  San  Francisco  show  the  same 
general  seasonal  tendencies  as  those  at  Los  Angeles  although  the  peak 
month  is  February.  The  range  in  variation  has  not  been  as  great  at 
San  Francisco  as  it  has  been  at  Los  Angeles  (table  59,  p.  104). 

There  has  been  a  tendency  during  the  past  three  years  (1923-1925) 
for  the  range  of  variation  throughout  the  year  to  lessen.  There  has 
been  but  little  variation  from  October  to  May  although  a  greater 
decline  can  be  noted  during  May  and  June.  This  may  be  due  perhaps 
to  the  practice  of  early  culling.     The  four  low  indices — June,  July, 


104 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


August,  and  September — vary  less  than  formerly.  A  tendency  for 
higher  indices  in  November  and  December  as  compared  with  February 
and  March  can  also  be  traced. 

April  stands  out  as  the  high  month  for  fryers  on  the  San  Francisco 
market.  The  decline  is  rapid  until  Jury  when  it  slows  down  slightly 
but  continues  until  the  low  point  is  reached  in  October.  A  gradual 
increase  occurs  until  the  peak  month  of  April  is  reached.  A  slight 
rise  in  the  prices  of  November  over  December  is  discernible — similar 
to  that  which  occurred  with  Leghorn  hens  (table  59). 

TABLE  59 

Indices  of  Seasonal  Variation  in  Broiler,  Fryer  and  Leghorn  Hen 
Wholesale  Quotations 


Los  Angeles 

San  Francisco 

Month 

Broilers 

I 

Fryers 
II 

Leghorn 
hens 
III 

Broilers 
IV 

Fryers 
V 

Leghorn 
hens 
VI 

106.2 
120.9 
124  1 

98.6 

83.5 

77.0 

76.1 

83.4 

97.3 

109.8 

114  2 

108.2 

98.1 
114  1 
124.3 
123.5 
108.1 
97.0 
90.4 
83.2 
84.3 
88.9 
92.5 
95.6 

109.3 
112.9 
113.6 
109.3 
100.0 
84.4 
79.1 
84  5 
96.4 
102.4 
106.1 
102.0 

108.2 
123.8 
125.1 
101.5 
81.1 
72.6 
78.2 
86.5 
97.2 
106.4 
114.4 
105.0 

93.6 
102.8 
117.9 
130.1 
123.8 
104.1 
93.6 
89.6 
89.0 
83.0 
.      86.5 
86 .0 

110  3 

111.1 

108.4 

105.9 

100.6 

June 

July 

August 

89.2 
84.8 
86.5 
92.8 

October 

November 

December 

100.4 
105.2 
104.8 

Average 

1000 

100.0 

1000 

100.0 

100.0 

1000 

Source  of  data:    Columns  I,  II,  IV,  V  for  years  1915-1925;  III,  VI— 1919-1925.    All  computations  by 
author  based  upon  Tables  51,  52,  53,  55,  56  and  57.    Median  link  relative  method  used. 


In  general,  the  Los  Angeles  variations  over  the  eleven  years,  1915- 
1925,  follow  the  same  course  as  those  for  San  Francisco  except  that 
the  low  months  (August  and  September)  and  the  high  months  (March 
and  April)  are  apparently  earlier. 

A  comparison  of  the  indices  for  the  past  three  years,  1923-1925, 
with  those  for  the  first  three,  1915-1918,  shows  but  little  tendency  to 
change  except  during  July  when  a  higher  index  occurs.  There  has 
been  a  slight  tendency  for  the  indices  to  be  lower  during  the  last  three 
months  of  the  year. 

Prices  of  small  broilers  are  more  subject  to  seasonal  variation  than 
those  of  either  Leghorn  hens  or  fryers.  On  the  San  Francisco  market, 
the  high  month  is  March.    A  rapid  decline  takes  place  from  the  high 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  105 

point  in  March  to  the  low  in  June.  A  gradual  rise  then  occurs,  and  a 
secondary  peak  is  reached  in  November.  After  a  decline  in  December, 
the  indices  ascend  to  the  peak  of  the  year  in  March. 

The  Los  Angeles  indices  are  most  closely  correlated  to  those  for 
San  Francisco.  December,  however,  shows  a  higher  seasonal  index 
than  January  on  the  former  market,  while  the  reverse  is  true  on  the 
latter  (table  59,  p.  104). 

During  the  past  three  years,  prices  for  small  broilers  have  declined 
to  comparatively  lower  levels  during  April,  May,  and  June,  while  in 
September  and  October,  the  indices  are  noticeably  higher. 


POULTRY    RECEIPTS,    COLD    STORAGE 

Receipts  of  live  poultry. — The  statistics  on  live  poultry  receipts 
are  rather  unsatisfactory,  especially  with  reference  to  receipts  from 
local  points  on  account  of  the  increase  in  the  use  of  motor  trucks  for 
transportation.  The  receipts  from  eastern  points,  while  evidently 
fairly  accurate  with  reference  to  the  number  of  cars  received,  are  not 
segregated  according  to  the  grades  of  poultry.  During  1925  thirteen 
states  and  Canada  supplied  817  cars  of  live  poultry  to  California. 
One  state,  Nebraska,  supplied  530  cars  or  61  per  cent  of  the  total 
(fig.  44).  Five  hundred  twenty-four  cars  were  shipped  into  the  state 
during  the  six  months  from  September  to  February,  inclusive,  the 
larger  shipments  entering  during  the  months  of  relatively  high  prices 
in  California. 

Over  one-half  the  total  number  of  cars  (432  out  of  817)  were 
destined  for  the  Los  Angeles  market  (table  61,  p.  107).  Nebraska  and 
Texas  furnished  72  per  cent  of  the  total  receipts  on  this  market  from 
out-of-state  points.  Of  the  293  cars  billed  for  San  Francisco,  235  or 
80  per  cent  had  their  origin  in  Nebraska  (table  62,  p.  107),  while  81 
of  the  91  cars  shipped  to  Oakland  originated  in  the  same  state 
(table  63,  p.  108). 

Reliable  statistics  for  arrivals  from  California  points  are  not 
available.  The  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  reports  177  less- 
than-carload  lots,  but  owing  to  the  use  of  trucks  this  figure  is 
undoubtedly  too  small. 

The  1924  statistics  show  that  250  cars  from  eastern  points  were 
shipped  to  San  Francisco — 171  cars  from  Nebraska  and  49  cars  from 
Texas  accounting  for  the  bulk  of  the  shipments.  During  the  same 
year,  218  cars  were  reported  from  California. 


106  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Receipts  of  Live  Poultry,  California,  1925 


Fig.  44. — California  imported  live  poultry  from  13  states  west  of  the  Mississippi 
Eiver.  The  above  chart  shows  the  number  of  cars  originating  in  each  state — 
Nebraska  530,  etc.     Data  from  table  60. 


TABLE  60 

Number  of  Cars  of  Poultry  Shipped  into  California  Monthly  from  Eastern 

States  During  1925 


03 

o 

03 

o3 
CI 

o 

g 
jo 

o 

03 

o3 

03 

03 

(O 

a 

03 

03 

O 
m 
0 

a 
a 

3 

o 

71 

03 
03 
I 

0) 

03 

a 

o 
-a 

3 

Q 

3 

03 

-a 

a 

1 

o 
>> 

"o3 

o 

O 

h- 1 

W 

i 

s 

fc 

fe 

o 

W 

H 

p 

^ 

H 

2 

2 

1 

6 

3 

36 

2 

i 

8 

60 

2 

1 

4 

33 

13 

53 

2 
2 

2 
1 

26 
18 

l 

22 
?(8 

53 

49 

3 

1 

3 

18 

16 

41 

3 
2 

1 
1 

2 

i 

3 
1 

24 

27 

2 
1 

3 

2 

2 
3 

41 

July 

38 

2 

3 

39 

1 

5 

1 

51 

8 

2 

3 

4 

70 

1 

3 

6 

97 

3 
5 
10 

1 

4 

2 

3 
2 

3 
5 
10 

1 
5 

2 

70 
81 

88 

2 
1 
4 

4 

2 

1 
4 
19 

88 

1 

106 

1 

2 

140 

1 

44 

14 

9 

41 

i 

18 

530 

2 

14 

9 

127 

5 

817 

Source:    Unpublished  data  furnished  to  author  by  California  State  Dept.  Agriculture. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


107 


TABLE  61 

Cars  of  Poultry  Shipped  to  Los  Angeles  Monthly  from  Eastern  Points 

During  Year  1925 


o 
a 
j3 
o 

o 

-C 
o3 

03 
O 

en 

cS 

C 
o3 

03 
O 

01 
09 

c 
c 

i 

S3 

o 

0} 

03 
03 

Ch 
X 

o 
o 

<x> 

03 
S 
O 

X 

o 

03 
O 

M 

03 

Q 

o 
m 

en 

03 

CD 

X 
03 

& 

a 

1 

o 
>> 

3 

o 

Eh 

2 

1 

5 

3 

17 

1 

l 

7 

37 

2 

2 

12 

12 

28 

2 
2 

1 
1 

13 
6 

l 

20 
17 

37 

April 

May 

June 

26 

2 

3 

2 

9 

17 

3 

1 

2 

3 

11 

1 

2 

3 

2 

28 

July 

2 

1 

1 

9 

1 

2 

2 

18 

2 

18 

1 

5 

1 

27 

3 

1 

1 

4 

31 

1 

3 

3 

47 

2 
2 
6 

1 

4 
2 

1 

3 
4 
10 

30 
37 
27 

2 
1 
4 

4 

2 

1 
3 
15 

44 

3 
2 

54 

December 

1 

69 

Total 

30 

10 

2 

33 

1 

15 

213 

2 

14 

9 

97 

4 

2 

432 

Source:    Unpublished  data  furnished  to  author  by  California  State  Dept.  Agriculture 


TABLE  62 

Cars  of  Poultry  Shipped  to  San  Francisco  Monthly  from  Eastern  States 

During  Year  1925 


-8 

03 
U 

o 

O 

o 

X 
03 

T3 

03 
O 

Ol 

03 

Ol 

a 

03 

M 

3 

o 

Ol 
Ol 

in 
03 

is 

03 
03 

H 

J3 
03 

P 

"3 

e1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

2 
1 

19 
21 
11 

5 
14 

7 

14 
15 
28 
27 
32 
42 

1 
1 

2 
8 
5 

23 

25 

14 

April 

13 

1 

20 

7 

July 

1 

1 

16 

3 

18 

September 

5 

1 

2 
2 

3 

39 

1 

2 

30 

November 

1 

1 
4 

36 

December 

4 

2 

52 

Total 

10 

4 

7 

8 

3 

235 

25 

1 

293 

Source  of  data:     Unpublished  data  furnished  to  author  by  California  State  Dept.  Agriculture. 


108 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  63 

Cars  of  Poultry  Shipped  to  Oakland  Monthly  from  Eastern   States 

During  Year  1925 


Canada 

Colorado 

Nebraska 

Texas 

Total 

No  repo 
No  repo 

1 

rt. 
rt. 

1 
3 

2 
7 
2 
6 
4 
6 
11 
13 
11 
19 

3 
2 

February 

March 

2 

April: 

10 

4 

6 

July 

4 

6 

11 

14 

15 

19 

Total 

1 

4 

81 

5 

91 

Source  of  data:    Unpublished  data  furnished  to  author  by  California  State  Dept.  Agriculture. 


TABLE  64 
Dozen  Poultry  Shipped  from  Petaluma  1903-1923* 

(Thousand  dozen— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Thousand  dozen 

Year 

Thousand  dozen 

1903 

33 

1911 

81 

1904 

32 

1912 

84 

1905 

39 

1913 

89 

1906 

40 

1914 

84 

1907 

39 

1915 

80 

1908 

83 
84 

1916 

1917 

106 

1909 

90 

1910 

76 

1918 

57 

Month 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

2 
2 
3 
5 
9 
15 
33 
14 
9 
11 
7 
7 

4 

3 

2 

5 

9 

24 

13 

36 

56 

50 

16 

22 

7 
7 
14 
26 
48 
63 
67 
81 
57 
39 
32 
36 

43 
49 
29 
33 
119 
116 
151 
120 
131 
48 
97 
49 

35 

52 

46 

62 

104 

207 

July 

169 

96 

48 

36 

73 

34 

Total  

116 

240 

478 

985 

963 

*  1924,  1925  incomplete. 

Source  of  data:    The  figures  have  been  published  at  intervals  by  the  Petaluma  Weekly  Poultry 
Journal.    The  editor  of  the  Journal  has  furnished  the  author  with  the  above  figures. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY  109 

Comparatively  complete  statistics  of  poultry  shipments  from 
Petaluma  indicate  but  little  change  during  the  ten  years  1910-1919. 
Beginning  in  1920,  shipments  increased  very  rapidly — almost  doubling 
from  1919  to  1922  (fig.  27,  p.  71).  As  previously  stated,  the  statistics 
after  1923  are  unreliable  and  hence  are  not  given.  The  five  months — 
May-September,  have  been  the  months  of  largest  shipments.  Dur- 
ing 1922  and  1923,  the  bulk  (1923  over  50  per  cent)  of  the  ship- 
ments were  made  in  May,  June,  and  July.  Variations  in  the  number 
of  dozen  poultry  shipped  are  given  in  table  64,  p.  108.  Information 
as  to  the  ultimate  destinations  of  these  shipments  are  unfortunately 
not  available. 

Dressed  poultry ;  receipts;  cold  storage. — Although  most  poultry  is 
marketed  alive  by  the  producer,  the  dressed  poultry  market  is  becom- 
ing of  more  importance  both  in  eastern  and  California  markets.  In 
1925,  only  13  per  cent  of  the  4,801,000  pounds  of  dressed  poultry 
received  at  Los  Angeles  originated  in  California,  while  more  than 
one-half  (52  per  cent)  of  the  5,615,000  pounds  arriving  on  the  San 
Francisco  market  had  its  origin  outside  of  the  state  (fig.  45) .  Records 
from  other  cities  and  towns  within  the  state  are  not  available.  Con- 
siderably over  one-half  of  the  receipts  on  the  two  largest  California 
markets  arrive  during  two  months  of  the  year— November  and 
December.  During  the  remainder  of  the  year  they  are  much  less  and 
fairly  uniform.  A  large  proportion  of  the  receipts  during  November 
and  December  are  no  doubt  turkeys. 

During  the  months  of  excess  receipts,  the  markets  of  the  country 
are  over-supplied  for  immediate  needs  and  the  surplus  is  placed  in 
storage.  The  cold  storage  holdings  of  dressed  poultry  in  the  United 
States  are  heaviest  from  December  to  May  as  will  be  seen  from  the 
following  indices  of  seasonal  variation  (fig.  47,  p.  111).* 


January 161.5  July 61.9 

February 170.1  August 55.5 

March 151.5  September 52.1 

April 120.0  October 54  0 

May 87.1  November 67  0 

June 73  0  December 103.5 

Data  available  for  four  markets  (Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia, 
and  Chicago)  for  1924  indicate  that  California  was  a  minor  factor  in 
supplying  them  with  dressed  poultry.     Only  528,000  pounds  of  the 


*  Falkner,  II.  D.,  Method  used  in  determining  seasonal  indices. 

Mills,  F.  C.     Statistical  methods,  pp.  323-326.     Computation  from  figures  in 
table  67. 


110 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Dressed  Poultry  Receipts,  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles,  1924-1926 

/soo 


/zoo 


800 


400 


moo 


H80O 


{ZOO 


800 


aoo 


^-To-f-al    Los 

Angeles      » 

L       Los  Ange 
\     Receipts 

/es        1 
-from  1 

\    Ca/i-Forni 

m~*~m  ■* 

^J 

/s;£4 


/^^5- 


/9;6<0 


Fig.  45. — The  dressed  poultry  receipts  are  especially  characterized  by  violent 
seasonal  fluctuations,  largely  due  to  the  holiday  trade  in  November,  December  and 
January.  California  furnished  less  than  48  per  cent  of  the  receipts  arriving  at 
San  Francisco  in  1925  and  only  13  per  cent  of  the  Los  Angeles  receipts.  Data 
from  tables  65,  p.  112,  66,  p.  113  and  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
U.  S.  D.  A. 


Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Poultry,  United  States,  1917-1926 


\ 

4 

V 

V 

J 

J- 

V  I 

\r 

T 

[ 

•Secc 

/or-  T 

-&nd 

IZO 

no 
/oo 

90 

30 
70 

eo 
50 

40 

30 
zo 


/9I7  I9IB  1919  I3ZO  1991  19Z?.  I9Z3  192.4- 

Fig.  46. — A  decided  increase  in  storage  holdings  of  poultry  has  taken  place 
since  1917. 

Data  from  table  67,  p.  115,  show  January,  February  and  March  are  the  months 
of  largest  holdings.  A  decline  to  the  low  point  of  the  year  in  either  September  or 
October  then  comes  about.  During  the  months  of  October,  November  and  Decem- 
ber the  holdings  accumulate  rapidly.  Equation  of  line  of  trend  y  t=  59.1  +  0.35  x, 
origin  at  Jan.  15,  1922 ;  x  unit  =  1  month.  Equation  for  line  of  trend  of  annual 
data  y  —  61.0  +  4.2  x,  origin  1922. 

Seasonal  Variation  in  Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Poultry,  U.  S.,  1917-1926 


I9Z5 


/9Z6 


Fig.  47. — Holdings  are  at  the  low  point  on  September  first.  The  peak  is 
reached  on  February  first.  During  November  and  December  the  largest  amounts 
are  placed  in  storage.     Data  from  p.  109. 


112 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


179,362,000  pounds,  arriving  on  the  New  York  market  in  1924  orig- 
inated in  California  (459,000  of  the  170,257,000  in  1925).  The  first 
nine  months  of  1926  show  an  increase  in  the  shipments  of  dressed 
poultry  arriving  from  California  on  the  New  York  market.  The 
receipts  January-September  (inclusive)  amounted  to  528,000  pounds. 
The  disposition  of  the  poultry  meat  from  the  White  Leghorn  is  one 
c_    "*."  7 t:V"!»is  of  California's  poultry  industry. 


TABLE  65 
s  of  Dressed  Poultry  at  San  Francisco  During  1925 

(Pounds) 


k   ■  OS 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

501,267 
29,221 

311,367 
23,000 

35,877 
29,619 

47,931 
20,828 
25,583 
87,579 

55,008 

250,590 
14,983 
67,000 

168,701 

36,553 

24,000 
54,855 

30,100 

214,706 

25,634 

11,422 

29,228 

132,088 

24,000 
38,714 

23,558 

28,365 

7,771 

24,603 
82,884 
13,549 

24,749 

1,465 

27,320 

37,059 
6,202 

29,058 
87,473 

67,775 
6,927 

19,961 

5,846 

868 

0 

1  25     

816,880 
765,905 
850,396 

517,467 
942,984 
749,130 

270,375 
285,159 
176,182 

216,132 
328,701 
162,889 

187,397 
153,700 
184,571 

430,833 
264,775 
241,950 

256,183 

1324 

400,043 

1J23 

246,696 

States 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

116,420 
12,415 

85,237 
6,287 

82,185 
57,678 

373,652 
168,482 

679,649 
233,867 

2,707,884 

; 

632,933 

-   ■ 

• 

146,683 

27,320 

48,573 

81,720 

197,820 
51,585 

161,189 
31,210 
21,108 

648,207 

51,585 

•|  | 

380 

1,913 

85,054 

439,604 

M 

.  ka      

127,517 

M  ■ 

29.506 

58,385 

49,352 

- 1 •• 

16,471 
3,592 

15,661 
13,335 

11,374 
45,526 

15,822 
29,746 

166,801 
27,737 
20,000 

464,331 

268,123 

Wv 

20,000 

.;  1925  

To 

176,598 
165,345 
133,545 

120,520 

225,886 
114,780 

247,249 
281,162 
147,712 

783,984 
1,339,413 
1,136,099 

1,590,966 
1,299,510 
1,768,953 

5,614,604 

1924 

6,452,283 

1923  

5,912,903 

"ource  of  data:    Mimeographed  sheet  from  U.  S. 
( iscu  Office. 


D.  A.,  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics,  San  Fran- 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


113 


TABLE  66 
Eeceipts  of  Dressed  Poultry  by  States  at  Los  Angeles  During  1925 

(Pounds) 


States 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

129,541 

11,578 

569 

167,270 

341 

24,456 

145,347 

42,981 

993 

1,450 

12,386 

56,660 

5,465 

765 

37,151 

38,664 
596 
379 

31,266 

57,697 

27,702 

190 

224 

3,625 

5,611 

1,127 

1,291 

13,290 

39,368 

14,880 

150 

1,112 

22,500 

8,359 

5,748 

73,223 
2,155 

34,273 

995 

9,804 

7,239 

3,087 

14,199 

3,865 

326 

2,120 

89,138 
7,138 

35,129 

35,176 

29,907 
19,494 

35,674 

4,481 

229 

22,166 
1,162 

3,253 

6,621 

75,255 

1,350 

4,428 

3,520 

3,431 

7,761 
3,458 
2,552 
1,610 

515 

32,098 
29,402 

28,026 

634 
8,767 
1,299 

8,730 

480 

984 

25,796 

Utah 

8,100 

4,110 

289 

34,337 

Wyoming 

25,026 

Total— 1925 

552,582 

251,327 

256,634 

203,067 

134,692 

149,384 

109,908 

1924 

States 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

34,834 

21,411 

82,162 
238 

78,944 
132,604 
29,308 
28,691 

75,250 

18,083 

39,183 

192,129 

780 

623,356 

Arizona 

169,881 

2,237 
9,024 

30,000 
2,349 

104,106 
514,896 

Idaho 

20,030 

Illinois 

68,737 

19,788 
27,602 

44,244 

Kansas 

58,018 

70,708 

330,293 

5,295 

52,587 

28,124 

38,378 

18,407 

127,576 

625 

65,657 

71,593 

900 

103,228 
4,340 

103,929 

7,466 

65,561 

45,522 

173,249 
86,329 

306,027 

156,380 

1,033,443 

Montana 

85,884 

Nebraska 

192,011 

Nevada 

60,201 

2,105 
6,688 
7,823 

3,412 

1,129 

4,961 

10,481 

7,910 
4,347 

88,658 
2,968 

155,350 
89,953 

New  York 

Oklahoma 

526,325 

Oregon 

160,755 

29,000 
28,603 

464,582 
260,612 

Utah 

28,993 

36,123 

38,150 

72,776 

Wyoming. 

112,541 

112,541 

Miscellaneous 

25,026 

Total— 1925 

167,704 
183,790 

160,754 
337,551 

315,771 
179,454 

1,008,982 
939,177 

1,489,997 
1,653,640 

4,800,802 

1924 

Note:    These  figures  were  not  compiled  before  August  1,  1924. 

Source  of  data:     Mimeographed  sheet  from  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics,  San  Fran- 
cisco Office. 


114 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Cold  storage  holdings  of  poultry  in  the  Pacific  Area. — Data  are 
now  available  giving  the  cold  storage  holdings  of  the  various  kinds 
of  poultry  in  the  Pacific  area.  The  records  of  the  period  from 
January  1,  1924,  to  date  indicate  that  the  high  points  of  broiler  hold- 
ings occur  during  September,  October,  and  November,  while  the  low 

Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Poultry  in  the  Pacific  Area  (by  Groups) 

1924-1926 

Thousand 


Fig.  48. — The  peaks  arid  troughs  of  the  holdings  of  the  various  groups  of 
poultry  in  the  Pacific  area  do  not  coincide.  The  heaviest  holdings  during  1924  and 
1925  were  broilers,  followed  by  turkeys  and  fowls.  The  broiler  holdings  accumu- 
late beginning  in  June  or  July  and  the  peak  is  reached  during  the  following  three 
or  four  months.  Turkeys  are  placed  in  storage  beginning  with  November  while 
the  peak  is  apparently  reached  in  March.  The  into-storage  movement  of  fowls 
starts  in  the  summer  and  culminates  in  January.  Data  from  table  69,  p.  116. 
Current  data  in  Monthly  Supplement  to  Crops  and  Markets,  U.  S.  D.  A. 


holdings  are  found  during  April,  May,  and  June.  Broilers  constitute 
the  largest  holdings  in  storage  at  any  one  time  during  the  year. 

Turkeys  come  next  in  importance  to  broilers — the  peaks  being  in 
March  and  April,  and  the  low  points  in  October  and  November. 

Fowls*  give  evidence  of  a  high  point  in  December — and  of  a  low 
point  between  May  and  October,  the  data  available  not  clearly  indicat- 
ing the  low  points  (fig.  48). 

*  "Fowl"  refers  to  mature  female  chickens,  that  is,  hens. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY  115 

Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Poultry,  San  Francisco,  1923-1926 


V 


\ 


// 


W 


\* 


=7^ 


^ 


-/ 


-\ 


/ 


-X 


•->L 


/ 


■\ 


\ 


V 


X 


/ 


^sr 


/ 


Fig.  49. — Cold  storage  holdings  of  poultry  are  generally  heavier  on  the  San 
Francisco  market  from  December  to  May.  During  the  months  of  heavy  receipts 
the  markets  are  over  supplied  for  immediate  needs.  The  excess  is  placed  in 
storage  at  this  time  and  is  later  drawn  upon  to  supplement  the  receipts  of  the 
spring  and  summer  months.  It  should  be  noted  that  even  during  the  months  when 
holdings  are  low,  October  and  November,  a  considerable  supply  is  on  hand  in 
storage.    Data  from  table  68,  p.  116. 


TABLE  67 

Poultry  Cold  Storage  Holdings  on  the  First  Day  of  each  Month: 
United  States,  May,  1917-October,  1926 

(Million  pounds) 


Month 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

65 
68 
57 
44 
27 
19 
18 
19 
23 
30 
44 
71 

109 
120 
110 
93 
71 
56 
49 
41 
33 
30 
33 
55 

88 
92 
78 
61 
41 
31 
25 
22 
21 
23 
31 
49 

79 
81 
79 
62 
47 
35 
27 
21 
20 
26 
35 
65 

104 
103 
89 
68 
51 
39 
35 
31 
28 
26 
30 
52 

100 
122 
114 
95 
75 
57 
49 
41 
34 
33 
40 
63 

93 
99 
93 
76 
52 
39 
35 
34 
34 
40 
55 
88 

134 
138 
131 
109 
83 
68 
59 
54 
48 
44 
54 
87 

111 

108 
95 
73 
53 
43 
37 
36 
39 
45 

67 
64 
60 
54 
56 
47 
52 
50 

July 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Average 

40.4 

66.7 

46  8 

48.1 

54.7 

68.7 

61.5 

84.1 

Sources  of  data:    Years  1917-1924,  U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1924,  p.  995.    Years  1925- 
Agricultural  Economics,  monthly  issues  of  The  Agricultural  Situation. 


from  Bureau 


116 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  68 

Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Poultry  at  San  Francisco  on  the  First  Day  of 
Each  Month.     February,  1923-November,  1926 


(Thousand  pounds — 

i.e.,  000  omitted) 

Date 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

813 
1,046 
1,348 
1,139 
915 
961 
1,067 
1,182 
1,134 
1,091 
1,003 
1,255 

1,297 

1,477 

1,533 

1,354 

870 

885 

1,032 

904 

797 

619 

657 

641 

975 

Feb. 1 

1,593 

1,693 

1,230 

1,004 

1,038 

1,047 

1,103 

890 

677 

534 

774 

958 

1,317 
1,115 

924 

Apr.  1 

856 

July  1 

967 

952 

Sept.  1 

988 

Oct.  1 

684 

Nov.  1 

610 

Dec.  1 

Source  of  data:    Mimeographed  daily  market  reports,  Butter,  Cheese,  Eggs  and  Dressed  Poultry, 
issued  by  the  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics,  San  Francisco  Office. 


TABLE  69 

Poultry  Cold  Storage  Holdings  on  the  First  of  each  Month  in  the  Pacific 
Area.     January,  1924-October,  1926 

(Thousand  pounds — i.e.,  000  omitted) 
1924 


Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

535 
411 
399 
644 
351 

404 
414 
433 
1225 
542 

252 
395 
535 
1721 
331 

121 

329 
536 
1409 
279 

124 
249 
418 
1108 
211 

358 
212 
386 
914 
217 

841 
155 
414 

737 
220 

1318 
132 
453 
552 
254 

1670 
114 
552 
356 
309 

1803 
121 
672 
182 
314 

1905 

227 
734 
117 
302 

1632 

426 

912 

476 

428 

1925 


1519 
587 

1166 
835 
459 

1284 
643 
967 

1071 
522 

1067 
618 
847 

1297 
396 

804 
505 
721 
1293 
354 

644 
346 
482 
1095 
250 

683 
256 
415 

872 
236 

1134 
177 
263 

774 
347 

1318 
129 
197 
591 
369 

1556 
119 
238 
508 
388 

1142 

96 
260 
265 
359 

1046 
220 
382 
174 
345 

969 

294 

416 

360 

323 

1926 


Broilers 

Fryers 

Roasters 

Fowls 

Turkeys 

Miscellaneous. 


699 
83  57 
337  309 
564 
681 
411        280 


397 
33 
232 
479 
1344 
247 


175 
28 
191 
391 
1177 
207 


115 

11 

164 

221 

997 


406 
17 
104 
232 
865 


149        156 


1095 
34 
76 
404 
737 
199 


1491 

44 

53 

294 

594 


1647 

57 

95 

498 

504 


206        238        210 


1463 

65 

82 

494 

405 


Source  of  data:    Monthly  Supplement,  Crops  and  Markets,  U.  S.  D.  A. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY  117 


PER    CAPITA    CONSUMPTION    OF    POULTRY 

The  apparent  annual  consumption  of  poultry  per  capita  in  the 
various  industrial  sections  of  the  United  States,  according  to  investiga- 
tions conducted  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Labor  in  1918- 
1919  *  were  as  follows : 


Total 

5.41 

Hens 
4.78 
5.83 
5  02 
4.65 
4.04 
4.56 

Other 

poultry 

.63 

South  Atlantic  States 

6.41 

5.60 

.57 

.58 

5.19 

.54 

5.08 

1.04 

South  Central  States 

5.06 

.50 

The  Western  States  have  a  low  per  capita  consumption  of  poultry 
compared  with  the  United  States  as  a  whole.  Especially  noticeable 
is  the  low  per  capita  consumption  of  hens  and  the  high  per  capita 
consumption  of  other  poultry. 

The  per  capita  consumption  of  poultry  in  rural  districts  is,  from 
indications,  eight  to  ten  times  that  of  the  industrial  centers.  Surveys! 
of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  indicated  that  the 
per  capita  consumption  of  poultry  among  800  northern  rural  families 
was  45.4  pounds,  while  for  150  southern  rural  families  the  consump- 
tion was  58.0  pounds. 

Canada  as  a  whole  showed  the  following  per  capita  consumption  of 
poultry  during  1921,  1922,  1923  and  1924.J 

(Pounds) 

1921  1922  1923       1924 

Chickens 6.37  6.16  6.32 

Turkeys 35  .51  .66 

Ducks 09  .15  .16 

Geese 16  .26  .26 

Total 6.97  7.08  7.40  7.54 


*  U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1924,  -p.  1126. 

t  U.  S.  D.  A.  Bulletin  410.     Value  to  farm  families  of  food,  fuel  and  use  of 
houses. 

+  Information  furnished  to  the  author  by  the  U.  S.  D.  A.,  B.  A.  E. 


118 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


EXPORTS  AND   IMPORTS 

Almost  every  county  in  the  United  States  reported  poultry  to  the 
census  enumerators  in  1920 ;  hence,  every  state  is  a  potential  com- 
petitor of  California.  It  is  highly  probable  that  poultry  is  kept  in 
almost  every  inhabited  section  of  the  globe.  Not  only  on  account  of 
competition  in  the  domestic  market  but  also  on  account  of  possible 
markets  abroad  should  California  poultry  men  be  interested  in  the 
international  poultry  situation.  If  the  poultry  industry  of  the  United 
States  continues  to  expand  more  rapidly  than  the  demand  for  its 
products,  it  will  be  imperative  to  seek  a  foreign  outlet.  Although  the 
total  foreign  trade  of  the  United  States  is  of  small  importance  com- 
pared with  the  domestic  production,  it  is  of  particular  interest  to  the 
poultryman  of  California  not  only  because  this  state  faces  the  second 
country  of  the  world  in  the  present  production  of  poultry  products 
(China),  but  also  because  of  the  fact  that  its  main  market  faces  the 
continent  of  Europe. 

Because  of  the  different  forms  in  which  the  exported  and  imported 
eggs  are  moved,  together  with  changes  in  schedules  and  lack  of  infor- 
mation as  to  the  quality  of  each  grade  of  product,  it  is  impossible  to 
compare  the  quantities  exported  and  imported.  A  comparison  of 
values,  however,  can  be  made.  The  value  of  the  exports  of  poultry 
products  in  1925  amounted  to  $9,469,632*  while  that  of  the  imports 
totaled  $10,523,758,*  giving  an  excess  of  a  trifle  over  one  million 
dollars  in  imports.  For  all  practical  purposes  the  country  in  1925 
was  just  about  self-sufficient. 

In  kind  and  value,  the  exports  and  imports  of  the  United  States 
in  1924  and  1925  were  as  follows: 

TABLE  70 
Exports  of  Poultry  Products  from  the  United  States,  1924-1925 


Quantity 


Value 


1925* 


Quantity 


Value 


Eggs  in  the  shell — dozen 

Egg  products — pounds 

Poultry — live,  pounds 

Poultry  and  game,  fresh — pounds 


28,117,102 

504,803 

805,996 

3,996,417 


$7,437,595 

76,205 

364,611 

1,173,595 


24,998,502 

301,158 

712,390 

5,101,561 


$7,533,820 

45,062 

343,091 

1,547,659 


*1925  figures  subject  to  revision. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


119 


Table  70 — (Continued) 
Imports  of  Poultry  Products  into  the  United  States,  1924-1925 


Eggs  in  the  shell — dozen 

Whole  eggs,  dried— pounds 

Whole  eggs,  frozen— pounds 

Yolks,  dried — pounds 

Yolks,  frozen — pounds 

Egg  albumen,  dried— pounds.. 
Egg  albumen,  frozen — pounds 

Poultry,  live— pounds 

Poultry,  dressed— pounds 

Poultry,  prepared— pounds 


383,155 
,082,515 
,162,340 
,107,418 
,605,554 
,767,865 
996,071 
,778,977 
,630,061 
469,964 


$115,618 
961,136 
911,544 
893,979 
582,312 

2,203,154 
119,945 
337,139 
434,542 
308,543 


608,768 
1,455,031 
12,530,948 
5,683,462 
5,800,380 
4,189,231 
4,328,034 
2,071,739 
2,773,995 

366,040 


$162,817 
768,601 

1,837,407 

1,378,945 
959,016 

3,339,321 
541,518 
440,481 
857,436 
238,216 


*  1925  figures  subject  to  revision. 

Sources  of  data:   Mimeographed  sheet  issued  by  Dept.  Commerce,  Washington,  D.  C.     Foodstuffs 
'Round  the  World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  Jan.  29,  1926. 

The  main  export  from  the  United  States  is  shell  eggs,  and  although 
the  quantity  in  1925  was  less  than  in  1924,  there  has  been  a  steady 
upward  trend  since  1895 — more  pronounced  since  1910.  During  the 
first  six  months  of  1926,  the  exports  of  shell  eggs  far  exceeded  the 
totals  for  similar  periods  for  1924  and  1925.  It  will  be  noted  that  the 
imports  of  shell  eggs  were  practically  negligible  in  both  amount  and 
value  (see  fig.  50).  They  have  varied  in  quantity  and,  in  fact,  have 
never  assumed  any  considerable  importance  since  1896-1897  when 
exports  exceeded  imports.  This  situation  has  prevailed  during  every 
year  since  that  time.  During  the  past  few  years  shell  eggs  have  gone 
principally  to  Cuba,  Mexico,  Argentine,  Canada,  Panama,  the  United 
Kingdom,  and  several  smaller  countries  in  Central  and  South  America. 
Argentine,  during  the  spring  months  of  1926,  was  taking  increasingly 
large  amounts  from  this  country.  Alaska  and  Hawaii  are  of  especial 
importance  to  the  Pacific  Coast,  as  each  of  these  non-contiguous  parts 
of  the  United  States  have  received  approximately  one  and  one-half 
million  dozens  during  the  three  years  1922,  1923,  and  1924.  The 
largest  amounts  of  shell  eggs  have  been  imported  from  China,  Hong- 
kong (British  Colony)  and  Canada.  The  foreign  import  trade  of  the 
United  States  during  the  past  few  years  has  been  centering  around 
various  egg  products,  as  a  reference  to  table  71,  p.  122,  will  show.  The 
rapidity  of  advances  made  in  the  uses  of  eggs  and  the  multiplicity  of 
products  have  made  the  tabulation  of  statistical  material  difficult.  For 
purposes  of  comparison,  it  perhaps  will  be  best  to  group  these  various 
products.  Whole  eggs  dried,  whole  eggs  frozen,  yolks  dried,  yolks 
frozen  have  been  placed  in  one  group,  while  egg  albumen  dried  and 
egg  albumen  frozen  have  been  put  in  another.  The  greater  part  of 
these  products  is  imported  during  the  second  half  of  the  year.  China 
and  Hongkong  are  the  sources  of  these  imports;  imports  recorded 


120 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Exports  and  Imports  of  Shell  Eggs,  United  States,  1870-1925 

Thousand* 


/,ooo 


Fig.  50. — There  has  been  an  upward  trend  in  the  exports  of  shell  eggs  since 
1880.  If  the  egg  production  continues  to  increase  more  rapidly  than  domestic 
consumption  the  United  States  must  find  markets  for  the  surplus.  The  imports 
of  shell  eggs  have  been  quite  irregular.  Since  1914  there  has  been  a  tendency  for 
a  decline,  and  since  1922  the  imports  have  been  negligible  compared  with  the 
exports.     Data  from  table  71,  p.  122. 

Equation  of  line  of  trend  of  exports  log  y  —  5.95725  +  .07000787  x,  origin  1897. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


121 


Imports  and  Exports  of  Eggs  other  than  Shell  Eggs,  United  States, 

1910-1925 
Povndsr- 


eopoOjOoo 

20,000,000 

/o,ooo,ooo 
T,50O,OOO 

5,000,000 
A ,000*000 

3,000,000 
2,000,000 

/,  000,000 

TfOyOOO 

500,000 

400,000 
300,000 

£00,000 


\ 


roo,ooo 


Impor-fs 
ana    Dr^eZ? 


o-f 


Ybtks,  \s-f-c 


i^NL 


* 

/ 


l 


Frx  >zer. 


/ 


if  I 


t 


I/npo'-fs 


/ 


\ 


V 


■ Exports 


o-f   Alnumen 


\^ 


o-r 


Yo/As 


^L 


I 


5 


Fig.  51. — Although  there  has  been  a  pronounced  upward  tendency  in  the 
imports  of  frozen  and  dried  yolks  and  similar  products,  there  is  considerable 
variation  from  year  to  year.  There  has  been  no  pronounced  trend  in  the  imports 
of  egg  albumen  in  various  forms.  The  exports  of  egg  products  are  almost 
negligible.     Data  from  table  71,  p.  122. 


122 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  71 
United  States — Imports  and  Exports  of  Eggs,  1866-1925 


Imports 

Exports 

Year 

Shell  eggs 

Yolks,  dried, 
frozen,  etc. 

Albumen 

Shell  eggs 

Yolks, 
canned,  etc. 

Albumen 

1866 

Dozens 

Pounds 

Pounds 

Dozens 

72,114 

31,642 

19,604 

4,055 

814 

5,017 

5,148 

15,683 

23,749 

34,119 

29,633 

32,591 

94,265 

91,740 

85,885 

80,146 

146,776 

360,023 

295,484 

240,768 

212,202 

372,772 

419,701 

548,750 

380,884 

363,116 

183,063 

143,489 

163,061 

151,007 

328,485 

1,300,183 

2,754,810 

3,693,611 

5,920,727 

3,692,875 

2,717,990 

1,517,189 

1,776.,  632 

2,475,884 

4,952,063 

6,968,985 

7,590,977 

5,207,151 

5,325,936 

13,276,060 

Pounds 

Pounds 

1867 

1868 

1869 

74,585 

13,270 

287,949 

4,905,423 

5,065,577 

5,601,175 

4,351,810 

4,903,771 

5,048,271 

6,053,649 

6,022,506 

7,773,492 

9,578,071 

11,929,355 

15,279,065 

16,487,204 

16,098,450 

16,092,583 

13,936,054 

15,642,861 

15,918,809 

15,062,796 

8,233,043 

4,188,492 

3,318,011 

1,791,430 

2,705,502 

947,132 

580,681 

166,319 

225,180 

135,038 

126,520 

384,070 

368,482 

496,825 

352,303 

241,034 

231,859 

231,939 

288,650 

818,267 

1,573,394 

1870 

1871 

1872... 

1873 

1874.    .. 

1875    . 

1876 

1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 

1881 

1882 

1883 

1884 

1885 

1886 

1887 

1888 

1889  . .. 

1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1894 

1895 

1896 

1897 

1898 

1899 

1900 

1901 

1902    .. 

1903 

1904 .. . 

1905    . 

1906  .... 

1907  . . 

1908 

1909     . 

1910 

869,923 
433,405 

1911     . 

Source  of  data:  Years  1866-1924  furnished  to  author  by  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Econ- 
omics. Year  1925  furnished  to  author  by  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  U.  S.  Dept. 
Commerce. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 
Table   71 — (Continued) 


123 


Imports 

Exports 

Year 

Shell  eggs 

Yolks,  dried, 
frozen,  etc. 

Albumen 

Shell  eggs 

Yolks, 
canned,  etc. 

Albumen 

1912 

Dozens 

973,053 

1,701,153 

5,668,398 

1,872,852 

759,673 

1,179,047 

1,244,826 

1,247,355 

1,708,701 

3,062,601 

1,019,170 

412,149 

383,155 

608,768 

Pounds 

43,822 

228,305 

3,420,412 

8,571,758 

7,669,350 

16,268,379 

6,752,453 

24,890,621 

29,022,577 

17,898,019 

18,239,074 

16,252,800 

15,957,827 

25,469,821 

Pounds 

Dozens 
18,962,168 
17,668,575 
21,019,166 
22,323,205 
28,266,443 
19,886,079 
20,938,278 
38,789,470 
26,841,772 
33,291,287 
34,620,050 
30,659,262 
28,117,102 
24,998,502 

Pounds 

Pounds 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1,421,883 
1,531,659 
1,700,377 

1919 

1920 

9,111,462 
4,638,529 
6,569,546 
7,046,299 
3,763,936 
8,517,265 

1921     

1922     .. 

704,625 
328,487 
504,803 
301,158 

13,242 

1923 

1924 

1925    

Sources  of  data:  Years  1866-1924  furnished  to  author  by  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Econ- 
omics. Year  1925  furnished  to  author  by  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  U.  S.  Dept 
Commerce. 

as  coming  from  England  are  doubtless  trans-shipments  of  Chinese 
products.  Since  1910  there  has  been  a  most  decided  increase  in  the 
first  group  (see  table  71,  p.  122  and  fig.  51,  p.  121).  The  imports  of 
egg  albumen  have  not  shown  a  pronounced  trend  although  1925 
showed  the  highest  importations  since  1920. 

The  exports  of  egg  products  are  negligible  when  compared  with  the 
imports. 

Imports  and  exports — California  ports. — Frozen  and  prepared  eggs 
and  egg  products  are  the  most  important  poultry  products  entering 
the  ports  of  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles.  During  1924  frozen 
products  amounted  to  three  million  pounds  with  a  value  of  approxi- 
mately five  hundred  thousand  dollars.  The  total  value  of  imports  of 
poultry  products  from  abroad  in  the  California  customs  districts  was 
$835,504  in  1924,  while  the  exports  amounted  to  $179,147.  The  largest 
amount  of  the  latter  consisted  of  eggs  in  the  shell. 

Tariff 

The  present  tariff  on  eggs  and  poultry  is  as  follows : 

Par.  711.  Birds,  alive  :  Poultry,  3  cents  per  pound :  all  other  valued 
at  $5  or  less  each,  50  cents  each;  valued  at  more  than  $5 
each,  20  per  centum  ad  valorem.  * 

Par.  712.  Birds,  dead,  dressed  or  undressed:  Poultry,  6  cents  per 
pound ;  all  other  8  cents  per  pound ;  all  the  foregoing,  pre- 
pared or  preserved  in  any  manner  and  not  specially  pro- 
vided for,  35  per  centum  ad  valorem. 


124 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Par.  713.  Eggs  of  poultry,  in  the  shell,  8  cents  per  dozen ;  whole 
eggs,  egg  yolk,  and  egg  albumen,  frozen  or  otherwise  pre- 
pared or  preserved,  and  not  specially  provided  for,  6  cents 
per  pound ;  dried  whole  eggs,  dried  egg  yolk,  and  dried  egg 
albumen,  18  cents  per  pound. 

The  above  is  from  the  Tariff  Schedule  of  1922. 


INTERNATONAL  TRADE   IN    EGGS   AND    EGG    PRODUCTS 

Foreign  trade  in  eggs  and  egg  products  was  greatly  disturbed  by 
the  World  War,  and  trade  channels  are  still  changing  most  rapidly. 
Indications  point  to  a  resumption  of  the  pre-war  aspects  of  the  trade. 
The  trade  of  Russia,  Germany,  and  Austria  Hungary  was  particularly 
upset.      The    discussion   in   this    publication    will    center    around   a 


Fig.  52. — The  number  of  poultry  in  the  United  States  is  larger  than  in  any  other 

country  of  the  world.     China  ranks  second.  • 

Courtesy  IT.  S.  D.  A.   Photo  from  Yearbook,  U.  S.  D.  A.,  1924,  page  378. 

description  of  the  efforts  being  made  toward  the  resumption  of  the 
pre-war  trade,  and  in  addition  point  out  the  increasingly  intense  com- 
petition on  the  world  markets.  It  is  also  worthy  of  note  that  pro- 
duction in  many  countries  contributing  to  the  export  trade  is  develop- 
ing along  modern  lines.  The  largest  exporters  of  shell  eggs  before  the 
war  were  Russia,  Austria  Hungary,  China,  Denmark,  Italy,  and  the 
Netherlands.  Places  of  minor  importance  were  held  by  Argentine, 
Egypt  and  the  United  States. 

The  two  outstanding  importers  of  shell  eggs  were  Germany  and 
Great  Britain,  although  Belgium,  France,  Switzerland,  Sweden,  and 
Norway  during  the  five  years  before  the  war  imported  them  on  a 
considerable  scale. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


125 


1 

c 
63  u 

00  -u 

M  4) 
M    . 

4>    CO 

01  o 

CO 

J* 

Q 

g 

if 

c 

X 

to 

X 

CC 

-t 
cc 

oc 

CO 

2 

a 

O 

oc 
»o 

3 
c 

o 

00 

OS 

IC 
<N 

I 

CO 
0 

o    t^ 

O*  oo" 
CO    CM 

83 

iq  uq 
00"    n* 
CO     CO 
CM    i-H 

to 

CO   o   o 

O    to    CO 
CO     OS    CO 

<M 

o  o 
to  to 

CO 

O^    <M 

to" 

"«5 

G 
kt 

to 
W 

s 

O    CM 
tO    CO 

CO     © 

CO    CO 

to 

C0t0t^i-Hi*OC000 

cc^concotjino 
q  N   q                r*          co_ 
CO    N    cc                     o"            CO 
OO    CM                               1--              O 

as   co  o 

-H      t^      CM 
°.     °l     °- 

co"  oo"  cm" 

O             -«f 

to 

CO 
CO 

£2£ 

tO_   i-H    CM 
CO   o" 

i-H     CO 
CM 

co" 

CO 

a 

CD 
N 

o 
Q 

00     CO 

lO    t~- 

lO    O    CO     i— I    CO    tO    O    O 
cococooooococo 

•**<"  o"  as               co"        o" 

1(0      00                                          -H                  ^H 

-h   r~                      cm          as 

CM     i-H     CM 

CO    CO    to 

°-  ^  ^ 
oo"  r~~"  oo" 
Tf    c^J    as 
00 

to" 

o 
oo 

as" 

CO    O    O 
to    OO    CO 
lO    co_ 

as  o" 

co   oo 

o 

co" 

>> 

o 

& 

T3 
d> 

G 

9 

o 

CO 

0 

OS     »H 

Ol    M    O 

r--      CO      CO 

00 

CO    i— I    ■«*<    t^ 

ra    N    "5    OO 

^h  i-i  ec 

■*     lO     H 
(M     Tt>     CM 

O0    U5    h 

CM" 

CO 
CM 

^     ^     ^     rH 
lO     to     lO     CO 
CM     CO_               i-H 

to" 

CO 

T3 
G 
G 
O 

Pm 

O    00 
CM     iH 

lO      ^H      t^ 

<M     CO    icf 

CO 
CM 

•<*<    ■*     CM     O 

■>*<   as   to   oo 

r-H     (M     as 

CO    o    to 
to  o  o 

(N     O^    CO_ 
l-H    <m"    to" 

OO 
CO 

O    OS    OO    •*»< 
CO    ^*<     i—i     OS 

CD 

a 
a 
►> 

-t  a; 
O   cj 

a  to 

A 

n 

CU 

CO 

u 
ji 

"o 
Q 

CO 

o 

(M 

to 

o 
o 

to    CO 
to    to 

cm"  co 

to    CM 

as 

o 

co 

to 
1^ 

CO 

°°» 
^*<" 
to 

co    co   co 
O    •"#    oo 
•*   co   oo_ 
to"         oo" 

cm  >o   t^   as  o 
as   cm   co   to   oo 
O   co   «q  i-* 

T^"                     lO"      1-J 

r-l     CO 

CO 

-a 

c 

G 
O 
P4 

CO 

OO 

co" 

o 

o 

lO     CM 

CO    CO 

to"  to 

CM     OO 

PS 

CO 

to 

to 

o 
o 

CM 

CO 

as 

-H      CO      <— 1 
CO      ^H      O 

O  fr-  o» 

»-T         as" 

CM              i-i 
(M 

M    «5    ■*     N    O 
<M    r^    i-<    O    <M 

i>   t-   m  ■*  ih 
i-T        ^h"  as 
-^          Tf   as 

o 

a 

s 

O 

Q 

OS    >0    CM    OO    OS 

OS    CM     CO    i-h    OO 

CM                      i-l 

«5 

OOOOOOOsasOOtOTtllOCOOSi— 1    N    18    ■#    - t    CO     OS    i— I     OS    CO    i— I    00 

ao    o>oo3Tji05^-iT»<-H(Mcoo-*oo>ot^->*icor—   10  n   o  ■*   m 
o  n  n  h  n  a  n         ■*  -^  u;  o>  io   n   h  q  n  h         -h  r*   cq  1-1 

TJH*     o"                                              ^                                              -H       i-H       1-1                                              B      N 
Tj<      CO                                                                                         l^-                                                                             t— 

CO 

C 
G 

O 

CO    O    — i    CM    ^ 

<— "     O    CO     CO    CM 

rt                      uq 

to" 

H    115    H    t- iOSC0C0t^C0C0OOOS-*f<Tf<C0C0©C0-<#— itoOCOCO 

CONN'*')ll»l»OmiOCCCOiOOiO'1'W*««NNmcoiO 

CO                      0000             COtONWOHCOOOO                      H    (M    r- I     i-l 

cm"  i>T                      to"  cm"  ■-?         as"  cm"  cm"                      oT  co 

O     CO                                                                   <M                                                          OS 
^H     i-H                                                                                 CM                                                                      CM 

o 
H 

£ 
: 

"a 

PC 

or 

TZ 
C 

_r 
a 

a 

c 

1 

~ 
c 
c 

,1 

f 

c 

p 

T 

a, 

E 

a 

■- 

> 

G 
S3 

G 
t 
1 

0 

OJ 

t 

3 

a; 

c 

> 

cr 

— 
c 

01 

-C 

a 

V 

> 

9 
c 

c 

X 

c 
a 

— 

a 
X 

a 
t 

§ 

CO 

£ 

c 

61 

c 

T3 

D 
S3 

a 

c 

or 

g 

T 

C 
C 

0 

0 
CO 

o 

o 

a 

A 
G 

c 

a 

9 

2 

T 
O 

a 
S 
b 
B 

H 

Ol 

c 

5     « 

£ 

- 

r 
c" 

— 

-.- 

a 

c 

93 

C 

K 

~ 

c 

cc 
T 
G 
J 

G 

— 

£ 

d 

n 

I 

X 
a 

PQ 

a 

"5 
£ 

99 

c 

to 
CC 

J2 

c 

C 

03 

-z 
a 
T 

c 

a 

a. 

'C 

C 
3  I-i 

i 

<r 

"C 
PC 

s 

0 

C 

G 

G 
P 
OJ 

G 
a 
e 
c 

£ 

0 

C 

I 

"£ 

c 

1 

A 
c 

£ 

P 

| 

J 

1 

— 
£ 

4. 

126 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


!   ^ 

u 

be  o> 
<U  co 
01   o 

§>> 

to 

oa 
o 

Q 

os 

co 

oc 

sc 

5 

O 

c 

CO 

t- 

CO 

© 
CM 

co" 

to 

xs 
d 
p 
o 

Ph 

o 

CO 

o    -* 

lO    o 

>o" 

OS 

o 

oo 

CO 
OS 

■*  o 

CM    lO 

00 

CO 

co 

§ 
00 

© 

«5 

13 

og 

d 

CO 

bO 

b£ 
W 

to 

"3 
0 

03     CO 

rjT  co 

co   r- 
oo    ■<*< 

O     © 

O   as 
iq  CM 

o 

03 
CO 

O    "5 
OO    CO 
CO    y-< 
cm" 

co 

CM 

33 
CO 

(0 

CI 
<B 
N 

o 
Q 

•*      O 

CD    t— 
Oo"    I-J 

00 

oo 

OS    CM 

CO     1-1 

o  o 

O    CM 
O    ^l 

© 

CO 

o 
o 

CO 

o 

CO 

m   <m 

o 

o 

C3 

CM 

© 

oo" 

CM 

>> 

o 
a 

d 
d 

6 

to 

O 

Q 

CM 

■* 

CO    CO    N    00    K) 
•*     t-h     CO    >-l    00 

O    O     CM    CO 
©     CM     rH     lO 

00    O    CM    CO    CO 
T^     CO     r-(     lO     t^ 

CO                           ^H 

■* 
.« 

o 

O   r~   — i 

CO 

c©_ 

co 

•o 

•a 
d 

o 

Pm 

© 

t^ 

O    00    CM    b-    CO 

Tj<     IO     •*     i—l     OS 
i-i                      CM 

«S     1^-     i— 1     CO 

■*    ■*     CN    O 
iC                      CM 

^i    _<    rt    o    ■* 

0O    CO    N     N    i< 
"*                      CO 

co 

CM 

CM    CO    CM 
rt    O    rH 

co 

CM_ 

CO 

t3 
d 

•+3   <B 
O  e3 

a  m 

CO 
CD 

J5 
"o 

Q 

CO 

CO 

OS     CM 

©     00 

00 

CM 

>q 

OO 

lO 

oo 
iq 

co" 

to 

d 

3 
O 
Ph 

o 

CO 

as    CO 
o    •<*< 
CM    CO 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CO 

OS 

co" 

>> 

o 
a 

0) 

3 

-2 
Q 

M    rt    CO 

T-l         ©        CM 

rH      ©_ 

©   oo   co 

©     t^     CO 
CM     <M_    •"*< 
CM"    rH 

co   co 

CO 
CM 
© 

CM     CO    lO 
CM    ©    CM 
CM    CM     CM 

© 
lO 

ko" 

TH    «5    CM    03 

CO     00     CO     t^ 

co 

o 

© 

CO 

'Hh" 

CO 

co 

to 

d 

PJ 
O 
Ph 

©     -H     CT3 

CO    CD    CO 
rH    OS 

Ol    M    rt 
N     CO     N 

q  m   co 

rt   co 

CO     03 
00 

00 

CM     t-4    © 

co   oo   oo 

CO 

en 

cm" 

o 

oo 

CM    CO    O    OJ 
CO    CM    «5    CO 
U5     ^H     lO 

© 
© 

CO 

as 
OS 

© 
00 

o 

X 

e 

a 
PC 

p 

C 

c 

n 

a; 

h 

1 

0 

p 
"S 

> 

a 
p 

e 

1  i 

< 

e 
PC 

'E 

PC 

cc 
X 

% 

C 

c 

s 

E 

ct 

p 

e 

c 

-g 

- 

S. 

PC 

a 

P. 

> 

r 
g 

c 

;l 

C 
> 

cc 
X 

c 

j 

T 

PC 

2 

X 

1 

1 

C5 

t- 

0! 

X 
f 
« 

> 

b 

e 

c 

1 

c 

c 
c 

C 
b 

c 

)  T 
c 
"■ 

)   g 

> 

? 

a 
— 
b 

P 

'    P 

c 

i 

a 
P 

7 

a 

T 
P 

7 

"3 

a 
P 
": 

.; 

— 

'2 
p. 

a 
< 

.; 

! 

1 

a 

C 

< 

c 

'p 

d 
a 
c. 

: 

X 
'I 

,0 

'e 

c 

t 

p 

a 

1 
< 
1 

•      « 

r 

a 

c 

c 
c 

f 

s. 

X 

•- 
T 
PC 

i 

a 

c 

p 

! 

c 

•> 

) 

"3 

c 

[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


12' 


or* 

feira 

bO 

oo 
M 

o 
Q 

OS 

00 

-- 

CM 

en 
CO 

go 

-a 

a 

o 

Ph 

CO 

o 

o 

"0* 
"5 

o 

Eggs,  frozen  or 
prepared 

"o 

Q 

r-  oo 

CM     —l 

co   o* 

to 

T3 

d 

O 
Ph 

OO     CO 
CD     O 
lO     CM 
O*    CM* 

co   co 

CO 

CO 

to 

O 

P 

o  o 

CM     O 

CO*      T-" 

o 

CM 

T3 

C 

o 

Ph 

o  o 
o  o 
o  o 

OO*    CO 

co 

CO 

a03 

btr* 

oq 

(-. 

o 

Q 

CO 

o 

OO 
OO 

O      —1 

•«*i   oo 
oo 
oo" 
-*< 

CO    CD 
CM     OS 

OO     CO 
t^    00 

CM* 

-5 

d 

o 

Ph 

s 

ON 

00 
OO 

o   oo 

CM 

CO    o 

,-H     Ttl 
i-H     CM 

lO    o 

o  o 

CO    CO 

co" 

>)  CD 
|g 

"o 

"<f     CM     lO    OO    CM 

m  t<<   n  n  h 

O              CO    CO 
.-<*           o"   cm" 

o 

CO 

CO    CO     CO    0O    CM    CM     CO 

0O     OO    00     Ttl     OO     i— i    OO 
H     H     ^     q    IN     »     H 

CM*             — *    CM* 

CM 
CM 

oo 
T5 

d 

o 

Ph 

1^-    OO    ■>#    -<*<     Tti 

O    ■*    O    H^    CO 

"~1  T~<   °.  l°- 

Co"             i-i"    i-« 

CM 

O)    05    00    00     O)    O0    H 

cm   ■>*<   oo   co   o  oo   r- 

■*   ■*   oo  n  n   oo  to 

CM*             CM*    >0 

UTS 

oo 

oo 

CM 

CO 

73 
c3 

T3 
O 

Ph 

GO 

"3 
Q 

id    OO 
CM 

o 
us 

OS 

»o   oo 

oo   co 
°l  °. 
—*  o* 

CO    CM 

rt     CO 

eo 

oo" 

GO 

-a 
o 

Ph 

CM     03 
CO* 

CO 
OO 

»-l      03 
CO     1-H 

■*     CM 
CM    ■** 

O    CO 
00    CM 

CM 

CD 
> 

o 

p-i 

03 

"o 
Q 

05 

o 

CM 

»o 

OO 
00 

o 

HO    O     "0    O    «5     ^H 
OO    lO            CO    »-i    »o 
en    O                           CO 
j    CM*   O* 

oo 
co 

o  ■* 

"H     O 
00 

OO    00 
^H    00 

42 

s 

O 

Ph 

CM 

CO 

O 
CM 

CM 

00 

CO 

tj<  co  o  o  io  ■* 

O    N    IN    ii    H    OO 
ra  N                       r^ 

CM*    00*                               rt* 
CO 

IC    —I 

rt     OS 

CO 

00* 

CM    t*i 

£ 
o 

E 

't 

t 

E 

1    E 

> 

c 

c- 
E 

t 
I 
I 

c 

> 

C! 

b 
= 

II 

1  > 

+ 

Of 

X 

c 
q 

a 

|z 

» 

i 

c 

.  r 

p. 

0 

c 

c 

z 

a 

X 

c 

1 

,    i 
XL 

a 

B 

c 

(- 

1 

£ 

j 

■  I 

1 

1 

'E 

1= 

) 

i 

E 

n 

1 

1 

5 

c 

.1 

1 

< 

c 

~ 

c 
1 

X 

c 

E 

0 

- 

E 
c 
T 
E 

j 

1 

) 
) 

3 

! 

J 

) 

B 

c 

c 

e: 

g 

E 

£ 

c 

ll 

c 

1 

a 
X 

c 
-g 

c  ± 
PC 

c 

I 

i 

x. 

X 

PC 

■» 

-3  3 


128 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


CO 

bBT3 
hfl 

CO 

p 

OS     -H 
CM     CN 

o 

OO 

OO 

35 

r> 

o» 

eo 

en 
00 

CO 

C 

o 
Ph 

O    CM 
1-H     CM 

©     ^H 

© 
<* 

on 
© 

O 
-*" 

(4 

o 

C-73 
a>  <p 

O  c3 

£  a 

CD    tl 

bO» 
bfl 

H 

CO 

is 

"3 
P 

«     O     OO 
CM    0_ 
CM    CM 
00 

os 

CO 

73 

C 

O 
Ph 

CO      -H      O 

•n    OS    o 
**<_  t--   co 
oo"  ^ 

O     CM 

m" 

O 

eo 

CM* 

CO 

co" 

73 

■9 

CO 

bti 
b0 

CO 

is 

0 

CM    •* 
in    CM 

cm" 

CO 

CO 

co 

CO 

OS 

CO 

73 

d 
3 

o 
Ph 

OO     CO 

e»  oo 

OO 
CM 

CO 

m 
«o 

oo 

©_ 

CM 

>> 

bD  a 

bfl— 

Q 

-h   o   os 
•<*<   -o<   i- 
io    IO    ■* 

t~-T  »n" 

CM 

co 

00 
CO 

in" 

CO 

a 

CD 
SJ 

o 
Q 

O     CM     CO 
©     CO    in 
°l    ^    ^ 

o   m"  « 

CO     «-h 
CM 

o 

CM 

in 

00 

co 

CO 

(- 
"o  . 

P 

»    Kl    !D    ># 
O     m     ,-H     i-H 
CM_    ■*     CM_ 

00 

CO 

us 

oo 

o 

CO 

73 
d 

O 

Ph 

en    co    oo    oo 
CM    -f    co    -^ 
CM     CM    O 

©"  co"  co" 

CM    O0 
CM 

CO 

eft 

cr 

CO 

id 

c3 
0> 
-73 

>i 
F-i 

CO 

b 

a 

o 

Q 

OO    CO 

CO    oo 

CO    «o 
CO    CM 

en  •*£ 

CM 

j 

1 

M<" 

CO 

CO 

73 
d 

O 

Ph 

— <      00 

O    O 

co   r-- 

00    ^H 
CO    o 
■>*"  co" 

OS     <"H 

CO 

o 
o" 

CO 

> 

o 

PL, 

CO 

is 

o 

R 

:    CO    CM    m    © 
N    "5    OO 

CO 

e» 

co 

CO 

CO 

73 

a 

D 
O 
Ph 

:    00    •*    in    N 

:     ^H     y-l     CO     l^ 
CM     ^H 

o 
oo 

OS 

oo" 

c 

:     h 

i     c 

.S    c 

c 
a 
a 

c 

c 

b 

c 

T 

I  T 
c 

I 

) 

a 

"I 

< 

T 

.     c 

B 

7 

! 

> 

>    b 

CO 
P 

"3 

d 
JS 

.,    bO 

b  .a 
> 

0 

c 

h 

Ti 

<o 
u 

ci 

a 

CD 

a 

o 
a 
<v 

N 

o 

u 

c" 
o> 

S 
d 

bC 
b£ 

Q 

SO 

CO 

CO 

OS 

u; 

a 

CO 

a 
d 
o 

Ph 

429 

994,892 

750 

o_ 

co" 
os 

OS 

'C 

T3 

C 

a 

d 

bB 
bfl 

H 

co 
03 

"o 
Q 

67,713 

3,600 

2,118,076 

9,241 

4,524 

m 

co" 
o 

CM_ 

cm" 

CO 

d 

3 
O 
Ph 

61,164 

4,000 

2,685,914 

11,587 

5,200 

m 

CO 
00 

CO 

t^ 

cm" 

73 

e 

a 

CP 

a 
o 

CO 

N 

o 

CO 

O 

>, 
bB 
bB 

CO 

s 

o 

P 

46,344 

2,328 

533,573 

67 

eo 
cm" 

oo 

m 

CO 

T3 

a 

3 

178,640 

14,784 

3,411,630 

500 

m 
in 
in" 

o 

CO 

CM 

OS 

E 
c 

"C 
b 

C 

T 

a 

'c 

) 
a 

K 

c 

— 
C 

b 

C 

c 
J* 

b 

1 

c 
a 

rj 

c 

C 

b 

1    6 
C 

)  £ 
c 

C 

( 

) 

[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


129 


Since  the  war,  countries  exporting  eggs  in  considerable  quantities 
have  been  China,  Denmark,  Russia,  the  United  States,  Italy,  and  the 
Netherlands. 

The  outstanding  importing  nation  since  the  war  has  been  the 
United  Kingdom,  although  Germany  is  apparently  increasing  her 
imports  steadily.     Of  special  importance  to  the  United  States  have 


TABLE  74 

Eggs  in  Shell 

International  Trade,  calendar  years,  average  1909-1913,  annual  1921-1923 

(Thousand  dozen— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Average  1909-1913 

1921 

1922 

1923  preliminary 

Country 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Principal  exporting 
countries: 

2,351 

11 
5,417 

6,358 

317 

3,557 

3,336 

9,564 

26 

Austria-Hungary 

91,561 
270 
2,243 
2,899 
4,104 
19,542 
(2)1,701 

19,148 

6,341 

4,732 

37,215 

228,279 

6,867 

387 

4,207 

19,747 

190,015 

177,163 
25,542 
34,340 
3 
33,482 
29,360 
12,108 

11,521 
148 

139 
86 
tt 

316 
1,047 
3,063 

4,413 
6,583 

16,353 

11,847 
2,038 

53,277 
4,089 
2,637 

14,685 
105,305 

98,393 

54,007 

871 

392 

9,738 

33,291 

137 
5,444 

234 
414 

98,498 
61,258 
324 
13,363 
13,087 
34,620 

1,181 
3,619 

788 
1,403 

91,754 

66,602 

35 

Italy 

2,534 
1,392 
1,019 

9,506 

8,141 

11,006 

26,711 

194 

3,621 

964 
412 

5,414 
6,623 

13,173 

19,874 

30,659 

Principal  importing 
countries: 

5,356 

2,900 

Cuba 

France 

8,920 
675 

1,451 

(3)944 

6,588 
1,069 

28,983 
1,150 

30,763 

93 

4 
3,781 

48 

2 
977 

28 

4,522 

2,519 

14,633 

135,670 

3 

814 

(») 

38 

1,828 
3,092 
17,623 

200,487 

Sweden 

1,127 

2 

Total  19  countries... 

641,609 

337,095 

231,306 

212,033 

218,812 

238,019 

281,952 

265,700 

(')  Less  than  500  dozen. 

(2)  One  year  only. 

(3)  Eight  months,  May-December. 

Source  of  data:    U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1924,  p.  1000. 

been   the    imports    of    Mexico,    Cuba,    Canada,    and    the    Argentine 
(seasonal  imports  in  the  spring). 

In  the  exportation  of  egg  products,  China  occupies  the  dominant 
position.  Available  statistics  indicate  that  China  has  increased  her 
exports  six-fold  since  the  period  1909-1913.  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States  have  received  the  bulk  of  these  imports,  although 
Germany  is  again  appearing  on  this  market.  Some  idea  of  the  world 
situation  can  undoubtedly  be   obtained  from   a   description   of  the 


130 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  75 

Eggs  Not  in  the  Shell 

International  trade,   calendar  years  average   1909-1913,  annual  1921-1923 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Average,  1909-1913 

1921 

1922 

1923  preliminary 

Country 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Principal  exporting 
countries: 

1,100 

188 
17,217 

64,545 

94,455 

100,387 

Principal  importing 
countries: 

526 

1,967 

11,214 

381 

(*)6 

426 

3,225 

4 

291 

2,037 

7,582 

202 

3,014 

195 

42,609 

22,537 

9 

26 

(2)556 

27 

486 

5 

453 

(6) 

557 

3,860 

9,717 

1,056 

3,247 

318 

41,875 

24,809 

2 
15 

1,362 

6 

796 

12 

452 

718 

5,764 

6,417 

949 

2,833 

52 

1,350 

Italy 

1 

Netherlands 

3,582 

(')255 

(5) 

(4) 
(5) 

54,060 
23,300 

328 

Total,  10  countries 

15,443 

21,066 

78,467 

66,107 

85,439 

97,818 

93,323 

105,700 

f1)  Three-year  average.  (4)  Less  than  500  pounds. 

(2)  Eight  months,  May-December.  (5)  Not  separately  stated. 

(3)  Two-year  average.  (6)  Expressed  only  in  value. 
Source  of  data:    U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1924,  p.  1001. 

developments  which  have  been  taking  place  in  certain  sections.  Brief 
discussions  of  some  of  the  advantages  which  certain  sections  of  Europe 
possess  in  poultry  raising  are  also  given  in  a  recent  publication*  of 
the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture. 


TABLE  76 
Imports  and  Exports  of  Eggs  by  Countries,  Canada,  1924  and  1925^ 


Imports- 

-Dozens 

Exports- 

-Dozens 

1924 

1925 

1924 

1925 

4,920,819 

236 

59,654 

2,577,400 

120,426 

2,363,170 

233,008 

62,925 

2,143,090 

144,206 

260,255 

Total 

4,980,709 

2,721,606 

2,716,604 

2,466,270 

*Not  including  Alberta. 

Source  of  data:     Mimeographed  sheet  issued  by  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Washington,  D.  C.     Food- 
stuffs 'Round  the  World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  March  12,  1926. 


*  Pierce,  H.  C.     The  poultry  and  egg  industry  in  Europe.     U.  S.  D.  A.  Dept. 
Bui.  1385:1-7,  1926. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


131 


Canada. — No  economic  study  of  any  product  can  fail  to  take 
Canada  into  consideration.  It  has  been  alternately  on  the  export  and 
import  list  in  poultry  products.  During  1924  and  1925  it  was  the 
market  for  considerable  quantities  of  eggs  from  the  United  States. 

The  production  of  eggs  on  farms  increased  even  more  rapidly  than 
that  of  poultry.  A  total  of  224,778,867  dozen  in  1925  was  reached,  an 
increase  of  nearlj^  six  per  cent  over  the  212,648,865  in  1924.  The  west- 
ern provinces  have  shown  the  greatest  progress,  mainly  because  of  the 
tendency  there  towards  the  diversification  of  agriculture.  In  1918, 
there  were  only  about  13  million  head  of  poultry  in  the  western  prov- 
inces, but  in  1925  this  number  had  been  increased  to  more  than  20 
million.  Thus,  where  they  were  once  dependent  upon  imports,  they 
are  now  engaged  in  a  considerable  export  trade. 

Poultry  of  all  kinds  are  increasing  rapidly  as  will  be  seen  from 
the  following  table : 


TABLE  77 
Canada — Kinds  of  Poultry  on  Farms,  1901,  1911,  1918-1925 


Year 

Number  of 
chickens 

Number  of 
turkeys 

Number  of 
ducks 

Number  of 
geese 

Total  number 
of  poultry 

1901,  Mar.  31 

16,651,000 

29,773,000 

31,334,498 

31,786,000 

28,287,000f 

34,341,000 

39,928,000 

41,356,000 

42,885,000 

585,000 

863,000 

1,062,000 

840,000f 

806,000f 

1,199,000 

1,590,000 

2,105,000 

2,348,721 

291,000 
527,000 
884,000 
778,000f 
651,000f 
762,000 
958,000 
1,046,000 
1,236,820 

396,000 
630,000 
879,000 
803,000f 
762,000f 
880,000 
947,000 
961,000 
1,088,000 

17,923,000 

1911,  June  1 

31,793,000 

1918 

34,160,000 

1919 

34,645,000 

1920 

30,506,000 

1921,  July  15 

37,185,793 

1922,  July  15 

43,930,562 

1923,  July  15 

45,469,292 

1924 

47,538,139 

1925 

48,133,969 

t  Not  including  Alberta. 

Sources  of  data:  Statistics  for  1901,  1911,  1918-1924  furnished  to  author  by  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  of 
Agricultural  Economics,  Washington,  D.  C.  Year  1925,  mimeographed  sheet  from  Dept.  of  Commerce, 
Foodstuffs  'Round  the  World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  Mar.  24,  1926. 

Mexico. — A  remarkable  development  within  recent  years  has  been 
the  increase  in  exporting  eggs  from  the  United  States  to  Mexico  espe- 
cially since  1918.  This  increase  is  due  partly  to  Mexico's  decrease  in 
production  brought  about  by  revolution,  and  partly  to  the  difference 
in  seasons  of  the  two  countries.  In  the  large  central  plateau  of  Mexico, 
the  season  of  greatest  production  is  during  December,  January,  and 
February.  During  the  spring  and  summer — the  rainy  season — fewer 
eggs  are  produced,  whereas  the  production  in  the  United  States  is 
then  at  its  height,    Exports  to  Mexico  in  1924  were  5,848,000  dozens. 


132  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

TABLE  78 
Canada — Imports  and  Exports  of  Eggs,  1900-1925 

Imports,  Exports 

Year  dozens  dozens 

1900 10,187,906 

1901 11,363,064 

1902 11,635,108 

1903 559,236  7,404,100 

1904 972,249  5,780,316 

1905 306,567  3,655,651 

1906 485,229  2,937,777 

1907 666,574  2,921,725 

1908 1,186,204  1,365,890 

1909 1,146,041  552,850 

1910 893,324  106,650 

1911 2,469,927  92,164 

1912 7,552,248  203,231 

1913 13,240,111  147,419 

1914 11,274,036  124,002 

1915 4,534,611  3,592,899 

1916 3,783,952  7,898,322 

1917 3,038,843  5,167,343 

1918 4,274,452  4,896,793 

1919 1,755,122  733,445 

1920 5,977,480  6,000,528 

1921 5,341,936  6,579,853 

1922 9,637,303  4,399,534 

1923 8,319,662  3,613,531 

1924 4,980,709  2,716,604 

1925 2,721,606  2,466,270 

Source  of  data:    Furnished  to  author  by  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C. 

TABLE  79 

Imports  and  Exports  of  Shell  Eggs,  Argentine,  1921-1924 
(Dozens) 

Exports,  Imports, 

Year                                        dozens  dozens* 

1921 4,750,935  12,382 

1922 2,428,935  356,125 

1923 2,594,748  2,141,365 

1924 4,555,298  3,378,478 

*  The  imports  were  converted  into  dozens  from  pounds  at  the  rate  of  9  eggs  to  the  pound. 
Source  of  data:    Information  furnished  to  author  by  Dept.  of  Commerce. 

TABLE  80 
Exports  and  Imports  of  Shell  Eggs  by  Countries,  Argentine,  1924 

Exports  by  countries  (1924)  Imports  by  countries  (1924) 

Dozens  Dozens* 

United  States 6,300               United  States 2,664,548 

United  Kingdom 4,503,798               Italy 446,773 

Italy 33,750               Uruguay 102,505 

Netherlands 8,120               Germany 82,672 

Spain 3,330               England 80,951 

Brazil 943 

Chile 41 

Denmark 45 


4,555,298  3,378,478 

*  The  imports  were  converted  into  dozens  from  pounds  at  the  rate  of  9  eggs  to  the  pound. 
Source  of  data:    Information  furnished  to  author  by  Dept.  of  Commerce. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY  133 

Argentine. — Details  of  the  exports  and  imports  of  eggs  during 
1924  show  that  the  movement  both  in  and  out  of  Argentine  surpassed 
the  1923  volume. 

In  1924  the  exports  of  eggs  from  the  United  States  to  Argentine 
more  than  doubled  those  of  1923.  Customs  officials  state  that  all  the 
eggs  imported  into  the  Argentine  in  1 924  went  in  free  of  duty. 

This  trade  is  of  especial  interest  since  the  exports  to  Argentine  are 
made  in  the  spring  (April- June)  at  the  time  of  flush  production  in 
this  country. 

Other  South  American  countries. — Statistics  with  reference  to 
other  South  American  countries  are  not  important.  Chile  has 
imported  small  quantities  of  eggs  from  the  United  States. 

Central  America  and  the  West  Indies. — Of  the  Central  American 
republics,  Panama  has  been  the  most  important  receiver  of  eggs  from 
the  United  States  although  other  nations  have  at  times  taken  varying 
amounts.  The  West  Indies  have  been  important  customers  of  the 
United  States,  Cuba  especially  being  a  large  importer. 

Effect  of  European  climate  on  poultry  production  and  quality* — - 
"It  may  be  safely  stated  that  if  Europe,  especially  northern  Europe, 
had  the  same  ranges  in  temperature  as  the  central  United  States,  at 
least  10  per  cent  of  their  eggs  and  50  per  cent  of  their  dressed  poidtry 
as  now  handled  during  the  summer  would  spoil  before  they  could  be 
marketed. 

' '  In  the  United  States,  the  January  mean  temperatures  range  from 
10°  to  30°  F  in  the  extreme  northern  section;  30°  to  50°  in  the  central 
sections;  and  50°  to  60°  in  the  far  southern  sections.  In  Europe,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  January  temperatures  average  from  30°  to  50°, 
except  in  Russia,  which  is  much  colder. 

"The  July  temperatures  in  the  central  United  States,  the  section 
of  greatest  poultry  and  egg  production,  average  from  70°  to  90°  F. 
The  corresponding  temperatures  in  northern  Europe  are  from  50° 
to  70°  and  in  southern  Europe,  below  a  line  drawn  through  northern 
Italy  and  upper  Yugoslavia,  the  corresponding  temperatures  are  from 
70°  to  80°. 

"When  it  is  considered  that  a  point  between  68°  F  and  69°  F  is 
the  temperature  at  which  a  fertile  egg  will  commence  to  develop  an 
embryo,  even  though  it  subsequently  dies,  and  that  at  a  temperature 
of  90°  blood  will  form  in  a  fertile  egg  in  three  days,  thus  rendering  it 
unfit  for  food,  these  temperature  figures  become  especially  important. 

*  Pierce,  H.  C.  The  Poultry  and  Egg  Industry  of  Europe.  U.  S.  D.  A.  Dept. 
Bui.  1385:1-7,  1926. 


134  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

They  show  that  in  the  egg-producing  centers  of  the  United  States, 
during  the  summer  months  not  only  are  the  average  temperatures  con- 
tinually above  the  physiological  zero  of  the  egg  (68°  F-69°  F)  but 
in  vast  areas  they  range  around  90°  and  above,  resulting  in  the  rapid 
spoiling  of  fertile  eggs.  The  larger  portions  of  continental  Europe, 
however  have  an  average  temperature  of  50°  to  70°,  exceeding  the 
physiological  zero  by  only  2°,  at  which  temperature  germinal  develop- 
ment is  very  slow.  Even  in  southern  Europe,  the  maximum  average 
temperature  of  80°  is  10°  less  than  that  of  central  and  southern 
United  States. 

"  These  lower  summer  temperatures  explain  why  it  is  possible  for 
the  Europeans  to  gather  and  ship  their  eggs  in  the  summer  without 
refrigeration.  They  also  explain  why  it  is  possible  for  poultry  to  be 
dressed  in  northern  Europe,  cooled  without  refrigeration,  sold  on  the 
market  without  additional  cooling,  and  reach  the  consumer  in  fair 
condition  within  three  or  four  days  after  killing. 

"The  climate  of  Europe  also  indirectly  affects  the  number  of 
poultry  produced  in  the  same  manner  as  it  does  the  poultry  production 
of  the  United  States — that  is,  through  its  influence  on  the  production 
of  corn.  In  the  United  States  the  poultry  production  is  the  heaviest 
where  the  corn  production  is  the  greatest.  This  is  also  true  in  Europe. 
The  largest  exporting  poultry  section  of  Europe  is  the  lower  Danube 
Basin,  including  part  of  Austria,  Hungary,  Yugoslavia,  Bulgaria,  and 
Rumania,  and  adjacent  Russian  territory.  This  is  also  the  main  corn- 
producing  section  of  Europe,  as  corn  is  not  produced  to  any  extent 
in  any  other  section  except  in  small  areas  in  northern  Italy  and  south- 
ern France.  Corn  is  produced  only  in  areas  where  there  are  warm 
nights,  long  growing  seasons,  and  adequate  rainfall.  Thus,  we  may 
expect  that  the  exportable  poultry  surplus  in  Europe  will  continue  to 
come  mainly  from  the  lower  Danube  Basin  and  Russia. 

"The  egg  supply  will  probably  also  increase  in  this  area  and  in 
the  sections  of  Europe  adjacent  to  the  large  markets,  such  as  Denmark, 
Netherlands,  Germany,  Belgium,  France,  and  Ireland.  In  these 
countries  interest  in  the  keeping  of  poultry  for  egg  production  is 
developing  more  and  more  rapidly,  and  the  flocks  of  poultry  can  be 
expanded  even  though  a  large  part  of  the  feed  supplies  must  be 
purchased  from  abroad." 

United  Kingdom. — Since  the  war,  the  United  Kingdom  has  been 
the  world's  largest  importer  of  eggs,  only  50  per  cent  of  those  con- 
sumed being  produced  at  home.  Eleven  per  cent  are  imported  from 
the  Irish  Free  State  and  only  2  per  cent  from  other  British  possessions, 
foreign  countries  furnishing  the  British  markets  with  37  per  cent  of 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


135 


TABLE  81 
England's  Imports  of  Shell  Eggs  by  Countries,  1922-1925 

(Ten  thousand  dozen — i.e.,  0000  omitted) 


Source 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

5,735 

774 
902 
650 
319 
319 
460 
1,260 
1,057 
337 

6,757 

478 

1,285 

1,435 

1,338 

415 

420 

1,209 

1,113 

240 

3,345 

378 

1,632 

6,045 
301 
731 

1,235 

60 

422 

54 

1,624 

1,033 
135 

4,687 
271 

3,682 

5,836 

212 

Poland 

1,068 

Holland 

1,692 
232 

Italy 

525 

75 

1,161 

1,101 

88 

4,567 

496 
1,352 

246 

5,170 

Total 

13,662 

20,046 

20,279 

21,974 

Source  of  data:     "Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser"  3,  1926.    Copenhagen,  Denmark. 


United  Kingdom- 


TABLE  82 

-Imports  and  Exports  of  Eggs,  1900-1925 


In  shell 

Out  of  shell 

Year 

Imports 
Dozens 

Exports 
Dozens 

Imports 
Pounds 

Exports 
Pounds 

1900 

168,820,780 
170,717,767 
189,667,950 
198,488,940 
191,925,918 
183,142,918 
188,740,583 
185,679,000 
182,100,666 
177,104,333 
183,441,333 
190,578,917 
190,850,500 
215,799,500 
179,048,083 
102,460,250 
66,063,750 
49,224,000 
26,564,166 
56,443,916 
70,605,083 
105,575,000 
136,616,666 
200,459,416 
202,790,000 
219,740,000 

1,810,960 

5,648 

7,570 

28,000 

59,841,824 
45,284,000 
58,174,929 
52,929,520 
62,322,000 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 . 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

14,547,872 

1921 

15,565,648 

1922 

9,870,400 

1923 

11,054,848 

1924 

1925 

Sources  of  data:    Years  1900-1923,  Statistical  Abstract  for  the  United  Kingdom, 
brugsraadets  Meddelelser,"  3,  1926,  Copenhagen,  Denmark. 


1923-1925.  "Land- 


136 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


the  imports.  The  imports  by  countries  are  given  in  table  81,  p.  135. 
Almost  every  exporting  country  in  the  entire  world  ships  a  portion 
of  its  product  into  the  United  Kingdom.  The  most  striking  feature 
of  the  import  position  is  the  severe  reduction  in  supplies  from  Russia 
as  compared  with  the  years  before  the  war.-  The  tendency  now,  how- 
ever, is  upward.  This  deficit  has  been  made  up  by  several  parts  of  the 
former  Russian  Empire — Poland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Esthonia,  and 
Finland — together  with  Denmark,  Egypt,  and  Holland.  Among 
countries  which  were  insignificant  contributors  before  the  war,  but 
are  now  relatively  important  sources  of  supply,  are  China,  Belgium, 
Argentine,  Morocco,  Canada,  South  Africa,  the  United  States,  and 
Norway. 

In  addition  to  the  falling  off  in  Russian  offerings,  there  has  been 
a  decline  of  3  or  4  per  cent  in  imports  from  Italy,  while  those  from 
Prance,  Germany,  and  Austria-Hungary,  which  amounted  to  10 
per  cent  of  the  imports  in  1913,  have  practically  disappeared  from 
the  British  market. 

Of  the  quantities  of  eggs  not  in  the  shell,  97  per  cent  of  the  supplies 
(1924)  were  received  from  China,  the  British  authorities  estimating 
the  number  of  eggs  represented  by  this  trade  in  1924  at  about 
750,000,000. 

Ireland. — Irish  eggs  have  found  a  desirable  outlet  on  the  English 
market,  and  the  Irish  Free  State  is  contesting  with  Denmark  for  the 
leading  place  on  this  market. 


TABLE  83 
Denmark— Number  op  Poultry— 1888,  1893,  1898,  1903,  1909,  1914-1925 


Year 

Chickens 

Turkeys 

Ducks 

Geese 

1888 

4,592,000 
5,856,000 
8,767,000 
11,555,000 
11,816,000 
15,140,000 

32,000 
41,000 
52,000 

644,000 
724,000 
803,000 

214,000 

1893 

230,000 

1898 

211,000 

1903 

1909 

792,000 
1,021,000 

119,000 

1914 

1915 

1917 

12,288,000 
9,884,000 
12,134,000 
14,395,000* 
17,803,000* 
19,184,000* 
20,029,000* 
20,084,000* 
20,093,000* 

1918 

1919 

1920  . 

1921 

1922 

1923 

51,000 

793,000 

283,000 

1924 

1925 

♦Includes  South  Jutland  Province  where  poultry  amounted  to  408,000  in  1920  and  618,000  in  1921. 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1888-1922,  information  furnished  author  by  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Econ- 
omics, Washington,  D.  C.  Years  1923-1925,  "Anvendelsen  af  Landbrugsarealet  og  Kreaturholdet," 
1925.    Copenhagen,  Denmark. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


137 


Denmark. — With  an  area  but  10.6  per  cent  of  that  of  California, 
Denmark  has  built  up  an  egg  export  trade  which  should  attract  the 
attention  of  every  poultryman.  The  total  number  of  chickens  in  the 
kingdom  is  not  large,  numbering  approximately  20,000,000. 


TABLE  84 

Denmark — Imports  and  Exports  of  Eggs,  1900-1925 

(Fresh,  Preserved  and  Unspecified) 


Imports 

Exports 

Year 

Shell  eggs, 
dozens 

Whites  and 
yolks,  pounds 

Shell  eggs, 
dozens 

Whites  and 
yolks,  pounds 

1900          

3,098,830 
5,275,563 
4,587,760 
5,443,116 
5,974,761 
5,713,105 
5,081,463 
3,443,196 
2,158,247 
2,793,222 
1,922,756 
2,207,912 
2,234,911 
2,053,585 
1,796,595 
1,124,955 
235,491 

27,646,617 
31,866,492 
36,401,669 
38,737,972 
35,675,683 
34,552,951 
32,940,012 
33,508,836 
35,422,458 
32,010,365 
33,937,462 
35,850,233 
32,025,886 
37,870,152 
38,103,976 
40,159,894 
40,095,396 
36,982,354 
27,312,907 
28,220,034 
45,515,179 
54,004,506 
61,256,050 
66,475,000 
69,373,333 
67,223,333 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

406,308 
611,556 
556,000 
521,388 
532,631 
386,246 
409,615 
383,821 
83,113 

1910 

1911             

2,205 

1912 

20,723 

1913 

6,834 

1914 

18,960 

1915 

212,082 

1916 

21,605 

1917 

2,645 

1918 

441 

1919 

2,167 

94,663 

85,663 

414,150 

577,500 

380,294 
629,413 
290,568 
557,323 

5,512 

1920 

1,323 

1921 

9,480 

1922 : 

1,543 

1923 

1924 

1925 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1900-1923,  information  furnished  author  by  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Econ- 
omics, Washington,  D.  C.  Years  1924-1925,  "Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser,"  21,  1925.  Copenhagen, 
Denmark. 

The  exports  during  the  past  few  years  have  numbered  over  sixty 
million  dozens  annually,  of  which  England  has  taken  the  largest  part. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  this  export  has  been  built  up  on  quality  based 
upon  a  most  careful  system  of  grading  and  packing. 

Germany. — Before  the  Great  War,  Germany  imported  even  larger 
amounts  of  eggs  than  the  United  Kingdom.  The  yearly  average  for 
1909-1913  was  228,279,000  dozens  while  for  Great  Britain  it  was 
190,015,000  dozens  during  the  same  period.  Since  the  close  of  the  war, 
the  imports  appear  to  be  rapidly  regaining  their  former  importance. 


138 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


During  the  first  eight  months  of  1924,  56,824,250  dozens  in  the  shell 
were  imported.  The  imports  of  egg  products  from  China  are  again 
assuming  importance.  In  proportion  to  her  population  Germany  has 
rather  a  small  poultry  population.  Poultry  in  1925  numbered 
71,300,000,  which  is  .5  per  cent  less  than  in  1924,  and  .8  per  cent  less 
than  in  1913.  The  decrease  has  been  in  ducks  and  geese,  as  the  num- 
ber of  chickens  in  1925  totaled  63,900,000,  which  is  the  same  as  for 
1913,  and  an  increase  of  .4  per  cent  over  1924. 

Germany  is  also  an  important  exchange  center  for  eggs  coming 
from  Russia,  Austria,  and  Bulgaria.  Some  of  the  best  German  eggs 
are  exported,  lower  grades  from  other  foreign  countries  replacing 
those  which  are  exported. 

Russia. — In  the  discussion  of  competition,  Russia  has  all  but  been 
left  out  of  consideration,  yet  in  the  few  years  before  the  Great  War 
between  250,000,000  and  300,000,000  dozen  eggs  were  exported,  or 
more  than  40  per  cent  of  the  total  world  exports.  After  the  war  other 
European  nations  increased  their  flocks  and  as  a  result  exports  have 
increased  from  a  considerable  number  of  nations  comparatively 
insignificant  in  this  trade  before  the  war. 

In  1923,  Russia  again  began  to  ship  eggs.  The  potentialities  of  egg 
production  in  Russia  are  enormous.  ^Information  from  government 
officials  indicates  that  large  areas  of  Russia  are  growing  corn,  and 
as  a  result  there  undoubtedly  will  be  an  increase  in  egg  production. 

The  rapid  growth  in  the  number  of  poultry  kept  in  Russia  is  shown 
in  table  85. 

TABLE  85 
Poultry  in  Eussia,  1923-1925 

(Thousands — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Chickens 

Geese 

Ducks 

Turkeys 

1923 

70,374 
103,690 
118,410 

5,000 

5,971 
6,246 

1,646 
2,758 
2,655 

360 

1924 

507    ' 

1925 

659 

Source  of  data:    Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser  17:  255,  1926,  Copenhagen,  Denmark. 

During  the  past  three  years  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce 
reports  the  following  egg  exports  from  Russia: 


Carloads 

1922-1923 320 

1923-1924 2,400 

1924-1925 5,000 

*  Information  to  the  author. 


Percentage  of 
pre-war  exports 

1.3 
10  0 
21.0 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


139 


Expressed  in  tons,  the  following  are  the  figures  for  calendar  year 
egg  exports  :* 

1923 6,200 

1924 31,800 

1925 59,300 

The  Department  of  Commerce  states,  ' '  During  the  first  quarter  of 
the  1925-1926  operative  year,  there  were  exported  2200  carloads  of 
eggs,  which  constitutes  37.9  per  cent  of  pre-war  egg  exports.  Russian 
egg  exports  for  the  first  quarter  of  1925-1926  increased  89.9  per  cent, 
compared  with  exports  for  the  corresponding  period  of  1924-1925.' ' 


TABLE  86 
Russia — Exports  of  Eggs,  Egg  Yolks  and  Egg  Whites,  1900-1912,  1914,  1925 


Year 

Eggs,  dozens 

Egg  yolks,  pounds 

Egg  whites,  pounds 

1900   

145,234,084 
162,250,000 
185,750,000 
231,254,250 
229,396,833 
249,462,666 
236,097,583 
217,302,083 
215,709,833 
237,061,416 
249,847,000 
306,837,416 
283,083,333 

1,648,739 
1,256,227 
1,336,181 

221,012 

1901 

94,905 

1902 

144,452 

1903 

1904 

1905     ..                                          

1906                                                     

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910    .                                            

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

282,988,250 
87,250,580 

1925 

Sources  of  data:  Information  furnished  author  by  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  Washington, 
D.  C.  1925,  mimeographed  sheet  issued  by  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Washington,  D.  C.  Foodstuffs  'Round 
the  World,  Worlds  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  Oct.  22,  1926. 

The  marked  progress  in  the  egg  export  trade  during  the  first 
quarter  of  1925-1926  is  ascribed  to  the  system  of  grading  and  assort- 
ing of  export  eggs  put  in  practice  for  the  first  time  in  the  Soviet  export 
trade.  As  a  result,  the  quality  of  Russian  export  eggs  is  said  to 
improve  continually,  and  in  proportion  as.  egg  exports  increase,  Soviet 
Russia's  part  in  the  world's  egg  trade  is  increasing. 

During  1924-1925,  eggs  imported  from  Russia  constituted  7  to  8 
per  cent  of  the  total  English  and  over  10  per  cent  of  the  total  German 
egg  imports,  while  in  the  first  quarter  of  1925-1926  the  share  of  Soviet 
eggs  in  the  total  London  egg  imports  was  already  17.7  per  cent  and 
33.2  per  cent  of  the  total  German.  About  50  per  cent  of  Russia's 
total  export  wrent  to  Germany  in  1924. 


*  Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser  17:255,   1926.     Copenhagen,   Denmark. 


140 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


The  egg  season  in  Russia  starts  in  March  (15th  to  30th)  and  ends 
the  last  of  May.  The  eggs  produced  during  this  season  are  the 
so-called  spring  or  grass  eggs,  which  are  not  very  good  for  export  pur- 
poses. The  second  season  starts  at  the  beginning  of  July  and  ends  by 
September 
eggs  and  are  especially  fit  for  export. 


The  eggs  produced  during  this  season  are  called  "grain" 


Poland. — During  the  past  four  years  Poland  has  become  a  com- 
petitor in  the  international  egg  market,  as  the  statistics  of  exports 
show.  In  1922  the  country  exported  7,490,000  dozen  eggs;  in  1923, 
19,508,000;  in  1924,  15,316,000;  while  during  1925,  exports  rose  to 
39,829,773.* 

At  a  recent  meeting  of  the  Poland  State  Agricultural  Council,  it 
was  resolved  to  introduce  egg  standardization  as  a  measure  to  increase 
Poland's  competing  ability  abroad. 

Esthonia. — This  Baltic  State,  formerly  a  part  of  the  Russian 
Empire,  has  steadily  increased  its  egg  exports  as  is  shown  in  table  87. 


TABLE  87 
Exports  of  Eggs  from  Esthonia,   1923-1925 


Number  of  eggs 

Exports  to — 

1923 

1924 

1925 

54,200 

3,393,200 

23,900 

690,100 

7,200 

3,246,200 

4,067,700 

1,805,200 

820,000 

6,403,700 

2,280,300 

5,547,100 

324,300 

1,400 

Total  

4,168,700 

9,939,100 

14,556,800 

Sources  of  data:     Mimeographed  sheet  issued  by  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Washington,  D.  C.    Food- 
stuffs 'Round  the  World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  May  21,  1926. 

Latvia. — Another  of  the  countries  formed  from  the  former  empire 
of  Russia — Latvia — plans  to  allow  for  export  only  fresh  eggs  weighing 
not  less  than  42  grams;  and  all  exports  before  shipment  will  be 
examined  by  experts  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce.! 

Lithuania  (part  of  former  Russian  Empire). — Eggs  are  the  prin- 
cipal item  of  foodstuffs  exported  from  Lithuania.  During  1925, 
64,976,000  eggs  were  exported  compared  with  84,700,000  in  1924. 
This  drop  was  caused  by  internal  complications. 


*  Department  of  Commerce,  mimeographed  sheets,  Foodstuffs  'Round  the 
World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  May  12,  1926. 

t  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  mimeographed  sheets,  Foodstuffs  'Round  the 
World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  April  9,  1926. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  141 

France. — Before  the  war,  France  imported  more  eggs  than  were 
exported,  but  recently  there  has  been  a  slight  tendency  for  the  exports 
to  increase  more  rapidly. 

Belgium  and  Holland. — Both  Belgium  and  Holland  have  been 
importers  although  Holland  has  been  of  importance  as  a  trading  center 
for  eggs. 

Italy. — The  Italian  exports  before  the  war  had  attained  con- 
siderable volume.  During  the  years  1922  and  1923,  the  exports  were 
only  half  of  those  of  the  pre-war  years. 

Hungary. — Although  with  an  area  much  restricted  as  a  result  of 
the  war,  the  export  trade  of  Hungary  is  rapidly  recovering.  Exports 
of  eggs  in  1925  amounted  to  21,010,000  dozens  against  8,825,000 
dozens  in  1924.  Poultry  exports  amounted  to  21,051,500  pounds  in 
1925  as  compared  with  14,609,000  pounds  in  1924. f  Before  the  war 
the  dual  monarchy  had  a  net  export  of  approximately  90,000,000 
dozen  eggs. 

Roumania. — During  1926  (first  six  months)  egg  exports  totaled 
8,386,491  dozen  compared  with  3,558,681  in  1925. 

Bulgaria. — The  estimated  1924  exports  were  13,200,000  dozen  eggs, 
compared  with  7,920,000  dozens  in  1923  and  26,400,000  in  1912.  The 
Bulgarian  exports  in  the  past  have  gone  mainly  to  Austria,  Germany 
and  France.  Bulgarian  eggs  in  1924  were  reported  on  the  New  York 
market. 

Egypt. — Northern  Africa  comprises  an  area  which  has  contributed 
greatly  to  the  international  trade  in  eggs.  Most  important  in  the 
export  trade  is  Egypt.  The  following  table  shows  the  quantity  of 
eggs  exported  during  the  past  ten  years: 

TABLE  88 
Exports  of  Eggs  from  Egypt,  1915-1925 

Year  Quantity,  number 

1915 245,644,000 

1916 '. 235,369,000 

1917 188,004,000 

1918 83,620,000 

1919 70,545,000 

1920 67,113,000 

1921 91,801,000 

1922 160,252,000 

1923 156,536,000 

1924 204,184,000 

1925 107,542,000* 

*  First  ten  months. 

Sources  of  data:  Mimeographed  sheet  issued  by  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Washington,  D.  C.  Food- 
stuffs 'Round  the  World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  Feb.  26,  1926. 

t  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  mimeographed  sheets,  Foodstuffs  'Bound  the 
World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  Sept.  10,  1926. 


142  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Evidence  points  to  a  further  decline  during  1926,  owing  to  a 
restriction  placed  on  exports  during  the  first  three  months  of  the  year, 
when  they  are  normally  larger  than  at  other  times. 

Nine-tenths  of  the  total  quantity  of  eggs  exported  from  Egypt  are 
shipped  to  England.  Egyptian  eggs  enjoy  a  peculiar  advantage  by 
coming  upon  the  market  plentifully  at  a  time  of  the  year  when  pro- 
duction in  other  countries  ceases. 

Algeria. — Exports  from  Algeria  increased  from  114,640  dozens  in 
1909  to  2,452,958  in  1919;  4,513,551  in  1924;  and  4,835,423  in  1925.* 

Morocco. — During  January  and  February,  1926, *  3,035,000  dozen 
eggs  were  exported  from  Morocco.  Of  these  exports,  2,724,885  dozens 
were  shipped  to  Spain,  220,460  to  Great  Britain,  and  89,655  to  France. 

South  Africa. — South  Africa  and  other  countries  of  the  Southern 
Hemisphere  are  of  great  interest  because  of  the  fact  that  eggs  can 
be  placed  on  the  market  when  supplies  of  fresh  eggs  are  short  in  the 
Northern  Hemisphere.  During  1925,  South  Africa  exported  2,392,950 
dozen  fresh  eggs,t  principally  to  the  British  market.  This  was  an 
increase  of  104,160  dozens  over  the  1924  exports — a  gain  of  4  per  cent. 

China. — Statistics  as  understood  in  the  United  States  are  not 
known  in  China.  At  best  such  as  are  available  are  mere  estimates. 
Poultry  farming  has  long  been  an  important  subsidiary  industry 
among  Chinese  farmers.  The  following  are  the  estimates  of  chickens 
and  ducks  in  China,  excluding  five  provinces,  for  the  years  1917,  1918, 
and  1919.J  '   ™  *     '         ™    , 

Chickens  Ducks 

1917 278,705,514  65,137,039 

1918 149,648,746  52,249,322 

1919 128,550,301  41,397,434 

According  to  various  estimates,  the  average  number  of  eggs  from 
a  hen  per  year  is  from  72  to  84.  The  annual  yield  throughout  the 
country  is,  therefore,  enormous. 

Exports  were  at  first  only  in  the  form  of  fresh,  preserved,  and 
salt  eggs.  During  the  war  these  shipments  were  curtailed  on  account 
of  the  lack  of  transportation,  but  recovery  was  rapid  in  1920  and 
1921.  During  1925,  according  to  the  Department  of  Commerce,  the 
first  nine  months  showed  a  decrease  in  the  exports  of  shell  eggs, 
52,781,085  dozens  against  57,938,250  for  the  corresponding  period  in 
1924.     On  the  other  hand,  egg  albument  and  yolk  showed  an  increase 

*  Department  of  Commerce,  mimeographed  sheets,  Foodstuffs  'Bound  the 
World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  June  2,  1926. 

t  Department  of  Commerce,  mimeographed  sheets,  Foodstuffs  'Bound  the 
World,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  April  23,  1926. 

+  Statistics  on  China  furnished  to  the  author  in  letters  from  the  United 
States  Department  of  Commerce. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


143 


from  41,999,895  pounds  during  nine  months  of  1924  to  57,733,190  in 
1925.  Owing  to  the  difficulties  of  transportation,  indications  are  that 
the  exports  in  products  other  than  shell  eggs  have  increased  most 
rapidly.  This  has  been  especially  the  case  with  egg  albumen  and 
yolks,  where  a  steady  increase  can  be  noted — the  exports  in   1908 

TABLE  89 
Exports  of  Eggs  and  Egg  Products  from  China,  1924 


Exported  to — 

Eggs,  fresh  and 
preserved 
Thousands 

Eggs,  frozen 
Piculs* 

Egg  albumen  and 

yolk 

Piculs* 

122,301 

6,342 

3 

118 

11,422 

15 

709 

22 

117,437 

3 

4 

27 

4,756 

1,626 

92 

644,093 

33,010 

2,273 

74 

8 

52 

66 

508 

221,622 

221,285 

9 

475 
1,295 
3,329 

54,126 

14,664 

45,129 

6 

1,467 

146 

24,563 
1,102 

86,850 

21,590 

2,970 

284 

168 

Italy- 

6,732 

1,125 

503 

192 

Total 

944,253 

252,392 

457,948 

*One  picul=133H  lbs. 

Source  of  data:    Information  furnished  author  by  Dept.  of  Commerce. 


TABLE  90 
Exports  of  Eggs  and  Egg  Products  from  China,  1921-1924 


Pieces  (Eggs) 

Pounds 

Year 

Eggs,  fresh  and 
preserved 

Egg  albumen  and 
yolk 

Frozen  eggs 

1921 

1,180,714,000 

1,181,980,000 

1,101,049,000 

944,253,000 

784,509,000 

52,376,136 
57,641,722 
50,337,987 
61,059,732 
76,083,865 

12,168,236 

1922 

36,812,841 

1923 

50,048,541 

1924 

33,652,300 

1925 

57,473,718 

Sources  of  data:     1921-1924, 
Chinese  Economic  Monthly  3 :  8, 


information  furnished  author  by   Dept. 
1926. 


of  Commerce.     1925,  The 


144 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


being  8,450,589  pounds  against  71,059,700  in  1924.  The  exports  of 
frozen  eggs  have  not  shown  such  a  steady  upward  trend  but  have  been 
characterized  by  rather  violent  fluctuations.  The  average  exports  for 
the  three  first  years  available,  1914-1916,  give  evidence  of  approxi- 
mately 20,000,000  pounds  of  frozen  eggs,  while  during  the  past  three 
years,  1922-1924,  there  seems  to  be  an  increase  of  100  per  cent,  or 
40,000,000  pounds. 

TABLE  91 

International  Trade  in  Live  Poultry,  Average  1909-1913,  Annual,  1921-1923 

(Thousands— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Country 

Average, 
1909-1913 

1921 

1922 

1923, 
preliminary 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Principal  exporting  countries: 

942 

14 

2,453 

8,435 
15 
15 
17 

2,010 

(4) 

1,797 

26 

8,967 

8,111 

29,829 

1,382 

877 

4,114 
16,617 

(2) 

2,462 

30 

9,606 

« 

685 

2 

795 

32 

278 
28 
50 

249 
36 
(3) 
786 
24 

763 

2 

11,345 

297 

256 

1,144 

61 

857 
3,871 
(3) 
2,185 

129 

383 
(3) 
118 

51 

^55 
4 
8 

418 
31 

609 
3,743 

473 

27 

579 

3,639 

Italy1 

3,967 
63 

1,299 

2 

17,504 

54 

339 
879 
239 

2,575 
339 

1,442 

(3) 
294 

1 
76 

4 
14 

5,552 
83 

1,024 

2,742 

247 

Principal  importing  countries: 

2,158 

21,252 

25 

115 

987 

1,170 

1,041 

Germany: 

(3) 

36 

5 

18 

Total  reported  in  number .... 

11,514 

6,690 

669 

4,866 

807 

4,706 

2,720 

4,497 

Total  reported  in  pounds 

52,420 

28,009 

14,294 

2,745 

23,988 

4,391 

28,930 

5,982 

i  1,000  pounds.  3  Less  than  500. 

2  Expressed  only  in  value.  *  Not  separately  stated. 

Source  of  data:    U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1924,  p.  996. 


6  Eight  months,  May-December. 


The  destinations  of  the  exports  are  given  in  table  89,  p.  143. 

Japan  and  Great  Britain  are  the  most  important  foreign  markets ; 
next  are  Hongkong  and  the  United  States.  Although  the  production 
of  eggs  in  China  is  undoubtedly  enormous,  it  is  small  in  comparison 
to  the  population. 

Australia. — On  account  of  the  reversal  of  seasons,  Australia  has 
been  able  to  place  eggs  on  the  English  market  at  a  profit  and  expecta- 
tions are  that  increased  quantities  will  be  shipped  to  England  in  the 
future.  Although  Australian  eggs  must  travel  half  way  around  the 
world  to  reach  the  English  market,  the  prices  obtained  in  1925  were 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


145 


more  satisfactory  than  those  on  the  home  market.     The  exports  to 
England  are  increasing. 

The  Australian  product  is  a  white  egg,  as  most  of  the  chickens  are 
White  Leghorns. 

New  Zealand. — Exports  of  eggs  from  New  Zealand  during  1923 
amounted  to  109,990  dozens  which  during  1924  increased  to  200,070 
dozens.  No  eggs  were  exported  during  1925  on  account  of  strike  con- 
ditions. The  poultry  population  of  New  Zealand  in  1924  was  approxi- 
mately four  million. 

Japan. — Although  the  poultry  industry  is  of  recent  origin,  Japan- 
ese eggs  have  appeared  on  American  markets.  Japan,  however, 
imports  large  quantities  of  eggs  from  China. 

TABLE  92 

International  Trade  in  Killed  Poultry,  Average,  1909-1913, 
Annual,  1921-1923 

(Thousand  pounds — i.  e.,  000  omitted) 


Country 

Average, 
1909-1913 

1921 

1922 

1923, 
preliminary 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Principal  exporting  countries: 

371 

232 
0) 

373 
2,920 

288 
C1) 

9,854 
1,649 
1,211 
1,162 
12,296 
6,019 

0) 

149 
C1) 

1 

1,997 

957 

37 

3,012 

866 

418 

95 

24 

227 

4,196 

8,818 

89 
1,644 

876 
5,334 
2,335 

502 

288 

159 

C1) 

290 
1,989 

797 
6,627 
3,786 

933 

138 
0) 

902 

2,837 

914 

3,659 

1,029 

44 

3,672 

792 
68 

7,560 

11,141 

Italy 

4,075 

1,653 

Principal  importing  countries: 

491 

76 

1,765 

18,875 

63 

349 

8,319 

10,994 

147 

866 

65 

75 

284 

4,245 

18,644 

10 
535 

25 

2  51 

2 

4 

2 

185 

39 
69 

(3) 
2 

4 

272 

166 

44 

12 

13 

127 

4,884 
34,825 

12 

321 

44,625 

32,888 

20,797 

11,337 

29,217 

14,808 

52,105 

22,390 

1  Not  separately  stated.  2  Eight  months,  May-December. 

Source  of  data:    U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook  1924,  p.  996. 


3  Less  than  500. 


International  trade,  Poultry. — The  international  trade  in  live  and 
killed  poultry  is  largely  confined  to  Europe  (tables  91  and  92).  The 
United  Kingdom,  Canada,  and  Mexico  import  considerable  quantities 
of  poultry  from  the  United  States  while  Canada,  Hongkong,  and 
Argentine  export  considerable  quantities  to  the  United  States.  For 
a  complete  summary  of  the  foreign  trade  for  the  United  States  during 
1924,  the  reader  should  consult  tables  72  and  73,  pp.  125-128. 


146  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  EGGS,  SONOMA  COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA 

By  M.  W.  BUSTER,  Assistant  Farm  Advisor,  Sonoma  County 
L.  W.  FLUHARTY,  Farm  Management  Demonstrator 

Data  on  the  cost  of  producing  eggs  which  is  presented  in  the 
following  pages  of  this  bulletin  covers  a  period  of  one  year  from 
November  1,  1924,  to  October  31,  1925  (a  year  of  relatively  high  egg 
prices).  This  project  was  started  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  a 
comprehensive  and  accurate  poultry  survey  and  in  addition  to  obtain 
data  on  costs  and  income  from  commercial  poultry  farms  of  different 
sizes  and  types.  During  a  series  of  years  it  is  hoped  that  the  efficiency 
of  various  management  factors  on  commercial  poultry  farms  can  be 
determined.  The  information  gathered  from  this  project,  simply  indi- 
cates valuable  possibilities  in  this  type  of  study.  The  results  should 
not  be  regarded  as  final.  Thirty-eight  poultrymen  in  Sonoma  County 
kept  complete  cost  records  on  their  poultry  flocks.  Each  cooperator 
sent  a  monthly  summary  of  costs  to  the  farm  advisor's  office  where 
they  were  checked  for  errors  and  omissions.  This  method  of  pro- 
cedure was  followed  in  order  to  secure  accurate  information. 

SIZE   OF   FLOCKS 

The  38  flocks  involved  in  this  study  ranged  in  size  from  an  average 
of  144  to  5171  birds  per  flock.  For  the  purpose  of  studying  the  rela- 
tion of  size  of  flocks  to  profits  and  various  other  factors  the  records 
were  divided  into  three  groups.  Group  I  includes  all  flocks  with  an 
average  of  less  than  751  hens;  Group  II,  flocks  having  from  751  to 
1500  hens ;  and  Group  III,  those  having  more  than  1500  birds.  The 
size  of  the  flock  was  based  on  the  average  number  of  hens  throughout 
the  year. 

Relation  of  size  of  flocks  to  profits. — From  this  study  indications 
are  that  the  size  of  the  flock  bears  a  direct  relationship  to  the  success 
of  the  poultry  keeper.  This  factor  is  of  special  importance  to  those 
producers  who  depend  upon  poultry  as  the  major  source  of  income. 
The  small  flocks  may  be  a  profitable  venture  for  the  operator  who 
devotes  to  its  care  only  time  not  otherwise  profitably  employed 
(table  93).  On  the  other  hand,  the  medium-sized  flock  (Group  II) 
appears  to  be  too  large  for  a  minor  enterprise,  but  too  small  for 
efficient  management.  This  fact  is  apparent  when  net  profits  on  all 
three  groups  are  compared. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


147 


The  effect  of  size  of  business  upon  profits  is  again  evident  when  a 
comparison  is  made  of  farm  income  from  the  three  groups.  The  farm 
income  from  Group  III  is  the  only  one  which  is  fully  sufficient  to 
maintain  a  satisfactory  standard  of  living  for  an  American  farm 
family. 

*TABLE  93 

Relation  of  Size  of  Flocks  to  Profits  on  38  Poultry  Farms,  Sonoma  County, 

California.     November  1924-October,   1925 


Group  I 

Group  II 

Group  III 

All  farms 

6 

537 

$2,330 

14 
1,051 

$5,688 

18 

2,488 

$10,879 

38 

1,651 

$7,634 

$2,769 

2,254 

515 

1,100 

959 

$4,468 

4,401 

67 

1,346 

1,006 

$10,918 
9,400 
1.518 
3,373 

2,728 

$7,255 

6,430 

825 

2,267 

1,813 

*  Gross  income  includes  income  from  all  sources  as  itemized  in  Table  95.  Total  cost  includes  all 
expense  as  itemized  in  Table  96.  Net  income  is  the  difference  between  gross  income  and  total  expense. 
Farm  income  is  the  gross  income  minus  operating  expense  (operating  expense  includes  all  expenditures 
for  feed,  stock  replacements,  taxes,  water  and  hired  labor;  operating  expense  does  not  include  operator's 
labor  or  interest  on  investment).  Labor  income  is  the  amount  received  by  operator  for  his  labor  after 
6%  interest  on  investment  has  been  deducted  from  the  farm  income. 

Relation  of  size  of  flock  to  investment. — Land,  buildings  and 
equipment  constituted  the  largest  items  of  investment  on  35  of  the  38 
farms  in  the  study.  These  items  made  up  71  per  cent  of  the  total 
investment;  while  feed,  carried  throughout  the  year,  and  stock,  con- 
stituted the  other  29  per  cent  of  invested  capital  (table  94). 


TABLE  94 

Average  Investment  in  Land,  Buildings,  Equipment,  Feed  and  Supplies,  and 

Stock,  on  35  Poultry  Farms,  Sonoma  County,  California. 

November,  1924-October,  1925 


Group  I 

Group  II 

Group  III 

All  farms 

Number  of  flocks 

6 
537 

12 
1,048 

17 
2,506 

35 

Average  size  of  flocks 

1,669 

Average 
investment 

Average 
investment 

Average 
investment 

Average 
investment 

Per 
farm 

Per 
hen 

Per 
farm 

Per 
hen 

Per 
farm 

Per 
hen 

Per 

farm 

Per 
hen 

Land 

1741.66 
658.33 
152.50 
104.80 
673.11 

$1.38 

1.23 

.28 

.20 

1.25 

$1,550.00 

2,154.16 

672.08 

66.88 

1,245.18 

$1.48 

2  06 

.64 

.06 

1.19 

$2,964.71 

3,151.47 

1,368.71 

193.68 

3,200.09 

$1.18 

1.26 

.55 

.08 

1.28 

$2,098.57 

2,382.14 

921.37 

134.97 

2,096.64 

$1.26 

Buildings 

1.43 

Equipment 

.55 

Feed  and  supplies 

.08 

Stock 

1.26 

Totals 

12,330.40 

$4.34 

$5,688.30 

$5.43 

$10,878.66 

$4.35 

$7,633.69 

$4.58 

148 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


This  table  indicates  a  less  efficient  use  of  capital  in  the  intermediate 
sized  flocks  than  in  either  the  small  or  the  large  flocks.  The  investment 
in  land,  buildings,  and  equipment  per  hen  is  more  than  40  per  cent 
greater  than  for  either  of  the  other  two  groups.  Fixed  capital  invested 
in  these  items  was  77  per  cent  of  the  total  investment  as  compared 
with  less  than  69  per  cent  for  Groups  I  and  III. 

Relation  of  size  of  flock  to  income. — The  sale  of  market  and  hatch- 
ing eggs  comprised  93  per  cent  of  the  total  income  on  all  38  farms 
where  records  were  kept  (table  95).* 


TABLE  95 

Eelation  of  Size  of  Flocks  to  Income  on  38  Poultry  Farms,  Sonoma  County, 
California.     November  1924-October,  1925 


Group  I 

Group  II 

Group  III 

All  farms 

6 
537 

14 
1,051 

18 
2,488 

38 

Average  size  of  flocks 

1,651 

Amount 

Per 

cent  of 

total 

Amount 

Per 

cent  of 
total 

Amount 

Per 

cent  of 
total 

Amount 

Per 

cent  of 
total 

$2,478.79 
86.87 
145.13 
14.36 
43.68 

89.6 

3.1 

5.2 

.5 

1.6 

$4,082.65 

46.16 

214.79 

26.82 

97.66 

91.4 

1.0 

4.8 

.6 

1.9 

$8,730.26 

1,483.27 

421.99 

65.12 

216.90 

80.0 
13.6 

3.9 
.6 

1.9 

$6,030.91 

733.33 

301.94 

43.00 

145.62 

83.1 

10.1 

4.2 

.6 

2.0 

Totals 

$2,768.83 

100.0 

$4,468.08 

100.0 

$10,917.54 

100.0 

$7,254.80 

100.0 

The  most  important  single  source  of  income  on  all  farms  was  from 
the  sale  of  market  eggs.  In  the  first  two  groups,  the  sale  of  hatching 
eggs  was  of  little  importance,  but  in  Group  III  receipts  from  hatching 
eggs  comprised  almost  14  per  cent  of  the  total. 

Relation  of  size  of  flock  to  expense. — All  items  of  expense  have 
been  included  in  table  96  except  the  cost  of  marketing,  i.e.,  delivery  to 
market,  grading,  packing,  inspection  and  commission.  Cost  of  market- 
ing has  been  deducted  from  prices  received  at  the  market  in  order  to 
get  the  net  farm  price. 

More  than  one-half  of  the  total  expense  (53.8%)  on  all  farms  was 
for  feed  alone,  while  about  one-fifth  (19.1%)  was  for  family  and  hired 
labor  (table  96).  The  outlay  for  stock  made  up  the  next  highest  item 
(17.3%).     Miscellaneous  items  such  as  water,  taxes,  insurance  and 


*  Eeliable  estimates  indicate  that  the  income  from  eggs  in  White  Leghorn 
flocks  in  Centra]  California  is  from  85-87  per  cent  of  the  total  income.  Interview, 
E-.  H.  McDrew,  Poultry  Producers  of  Central  California,  Nov.  9,  1926. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


149 


TABLE  96 

Belation  of  Size  of  Flock  to  Expenses  on  38  Poultry  Farms,  Sonoma  County, 
California.     November  1924-October,  1925 


Group  I 

Group  II 

Group  III 

All  farms 

6 
537 

14 
1,051 

18 
2,488 

38 

1,651 

Amount 

Per 

cent  of 

total 

Amount 

Per 

cent  of 
total 

Amount 

Per 

cent  of 

total 

Amount 

Per 

cent  of 
total 

$1,272.85 

331.21 

1.99 

444.65 

32.76 

30.69 

140.05 

56.5 
14.7 

$2,254.44 

687.01 

53.56 

938.74 

66.18 

61.03 

340.01 

51.1 
15.6 
1.2 
21.3 
1.5 
1.6 
7.7 

$5,127.27 
1,707.32 
463.97 
1,210.13 
101.61 
143.97 
645.62 

54.5 

18.2 
4.9 

12.9 
1.1 
15 
6.9 

$3,460.27 

1,114.15 

239.82 

989.28 

77.69 

95.53 

453.20 

53.8 

Stock 

17.3 

3.7 

19.7 
1.5 
1.4 
6.2 

15  4 

1.2 

Water,  taxes,  insurance 

Interest  on  investment 

1.5 
7.1 

Totals 

$2,254.20 

100.0 

$4,400.97 

100.0 

$9,399.89 

100.0 

$6,429  94 

100  0 

interest  on  investment  made  up  a  little  less  than  one-tenth  (9.8%) 
of  the  total.  The  cost  of  feed  comprises  70  per  cent  of  the  total  cash 
expense  when  not  figuring  operator 's  labor  and  interest  on  investment. 

Belation  of  size  of  flock  to  cost  of  producing  eggs. — Feed,  which 
is  the  largest  single  item  of  expense,  was  highest  per  hen  but  lowest 
per  dozen  eggs  for  small  sized  flocks  (Group  I).  The  comparatively 
low  feed  cost  per  dozen  in  this  group  is  accounted  for  by  the  larger 
number  of  eggs  produced  per  hen  (table  97). 


TABLE  97 

Relation  of  Size  of  Farm  to  Cost  of  Producing  Eggs  on  38  Sonoma  County, 
California,  Farms.     November,  1924-October,  1925 


Group  I 

Group  II 

Group  III 

All  farms 

6 
537 
160 

14 

1,051 

138 

18 

2,488 

136 

38 

1,651 

Average  number  of  eggs  per  hen- 

138 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Average  cost 
Feed 

Dollars 

2.36 

.62 

Cents 
17.7 
4.6 

Dollars 

2.14 

.65 

Cents 
18.7 
5.7 

Dollars 
2.06 
.59 
.09 
.67 
.06 
.26 
.04 

Cents 
18.2 
5  2 
0.9 
5.8 
0.5 
2.3 
0.4 

Dollars 
2.10 
.62 
.06 
.74 
.06 
.26 
.05 

Cents 
18.2 

Stock  bought 

5.4 

0.5 

.83 
.06 
.26 
.06 

6.2 
0.4 
2.0 
0.5 

.94 
.06 
.32 
.07 

8.2 
0.5 
2.8 
0.5 

6  5 

0.5 

Interest  on  investment,  6% 

2.4 

Other  overhead 

0.4 

Total  cost 

4.19 

31.4 

4.18 

36.4 

3.77 

33.3 

3.89 

33.9 

150 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Those  flocks  with  an  approximate  average  of  1000  birds  (Group  II) 
had  a  labor  cost  higher  than  either  of  the  other  two  groups.  Appar- 
ently a  flock  of  this  size  is  too  large  to  be  handled  as  a  minor  enter- 
prise, but  too  small  for  efficient  use  of  the  entire  time  of  the  operator. 
Items  of  expense  other  than  feed  and  labor  were  quite  uniform  for 
all  sizes  of  flocks. 

Relation  of  size  of  flock  to  profits. — The  gross  income  per  hen  was 
higher  in  the  small  flocks  (Group  I)  than  in  the  intermediate  or  large 
flocks  because  of  the  larger  egg  production  per  hen.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  gross  income  per  dozen  was  lower  in  the  intermediate  sized 
flocks  than  in  the  other  two  groups. 


*TABLE  98 

Kelation  of  Size  of  Flocks  to  Profits  on  38  Farms  in  Sonoma  County, 

California.     November  1924-October,  1925 


Group  I 

Group  II 

Group  III 

All  farms 

6 
537 
160 

14 

1,051 

138 

18 

2,488 

136 

38 

1,651 

Average  number  of  eggs  per  hen... 

138 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Average  cost 

Dollars 
5.15 
4.19 
.96 
2.05 
1.78 

Cents 
38.5 
31.4 
7.1 
15.3 
13.3 

Dollars 
4.25 
4.18 

.07 
1.28 

.96 

Cents 
37.0 
36.4 
.6 
11.1 
8.3 

Dollars 
4.38 
3.77 
.61 
1.36 
1.10 

Cents 
38.7 
33.3 

5  4 
11.9 

9.7 

Dollars 
4.39 
3.89 
.50 
1.37 
1.10 

Cents 
38.3 

33.9 

Net  profit 

4.4 

12  0 

9.6 

*  See  footnote  to  Table  93. 

The  total  cost  per  hen  was  smaller  in  Group  III  because  of  lower 
feed  and  labor  cost  for  this  group.  The  average  net  income  of  Group  I 
was  much  higher  than  that  of  either  of  the  other  two  groups,  as  was 
also  the  farm  and  labor  income  per  hen.  A  study  of  all  factors  indi- 
cates that  the  higher  farm  and  labor  incomes  in  Group  I  were  due  in  a 
large  part  to  the  relatively  large  number  of  eggs  per  hen.  The  higher 
farm  and  labor  income  per  hen  for  Group  III  over  Group  II  was  due 
to  the  more  efficient  management  of  the  flock,  particularly  with 
reference  to  labor. 

Relation  of  size  of  flock  to  various  management  factors. — The 
average  production  of  eggs  per  hen  was  smaller  in  the  large  sized  flocks 
(Groups  II  and  III)  than  in  the  smaller  flocks.  This  difference  in  egg 
production  maybe  explained  in  part  at  least  because  (1)  the  small 
flocks  were  culled  more  heavily,  and  (2)  their  mortality  was  about 
8  per  cent  less  (table  99). 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


151 


Although  the  amount  of  feed  consumed  per  hen  was  heaviest  in  the 
small  flocks,  the  amount  of  feed  required  to  produce  a  dozen  eggs  was 
less  because  of  the  heavier  egg  production  per  hen. 

*TABLE  99 

Relation  of  Size  of  Farm  to  Some  Factors  which  Influence  Profits  on  38 

Sonoma  County,  California,  Poultry  Farms. 

November,  1924-October,  1925 


Group  I 

Group  II 

Group  III 

All  farms 

6 

537 

14 
1,051 

18 
2,488 

38 

1,651 

160 
43.8 
34.6 
12.8 

42.7 
45.6 
76.3 

5.71 
36.3 

4.34 

138 
37.8 

136 
37.3 
25.9 
20.9 
42.5 
43.1 
73.4 

6.31 
37.0 

4.32 

138 

Per  cent  production 

37.8 

Per  cent  culled 

35 
19 
52 
54 
70 

6 
35 

5 

6 
2 
5 
4 
0 
13 
0 
41 

28.7 

20.1 

44.8 

45  7 

72.7 

6.21 

36  4 

4.58 

*  Percentage  culled  is  based  on  the  number  of  hens  sold  for  any  purpose  during  the  year,  as  related 
to  the  average  number  of  hens  in  the  flock  during  the  year.  Percentage  mortality  is  the  percentage  of 
hens  which  died  during  the  year  as  related  to  the  average  number  of  hens  in  the  flock.  Percentage 
replacements  is  the  number  of  hens  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  add  in  order  to  replace  hens  which 
died  or  which  were  sold  during  the  year.  Percentage  added  is  the  relation  of  the  number  of  hens  actually 
added  to  the  original  number  at  the  beginning  of  the  study. 


PRODUCTION  AS  RELATED  TO  COSTS  AND  PROFITS 

The  38  records  were  divided  into  four  groups  on  a  basis  of  the 
average  number  of  eggs  laid  per  hen  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
study  of  the  effect  of  quantity  of  production  upon  costs  and  profits. 
Those  farms  having  an  average  production  from  113  to  128  eggs  per 
hen  were  included  in  Group  I ;  flocks  averaging  from  129  to  144  in 
group  II ;  those  averaging  from  145  to  155  in  Group  III ;  and  those 
from  145  to  180  in  Group  IV. 

Relation  of  number  of  eggs  per  hen  to  cost  of  production. — The 
relation  of  number  of  eggs  per  hen  to  feed  cost  per  hen  and  per  dozen 
is  very  marked.  An  increase  in  the  average  number  of  eggs  produced 
per  hen  apparently  increases  the  feed  cost  per  hen,  but  decreases  the 
cost  per  dozen  (table  100). 

There  was  an  increase  of  33.6  per  cent  in  average  egg  production 
between  Groups  I  and  IV  which  was  accompanied  by  only  a  5.4  per 
cent  increase  in  cost  of  feed  consumed.  The  total  cost  of  maintaining 
a  hen  increased  slightly  as  the  average  number  of  eggs  per  hen 
increased,  but  the  range  of  increase  from  Group  I  to  Group  IV  is 
small  as  compared  with  the  increase  in  production. 


152  UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

TABLE  100 

Belation  of  Number  of  Eggs  Per  Hen  to  Cost  of  Production  on  38  Sonoma 
County,  California,  Poultry  Farms.    November,  1924-October,  1925 


Group  I 

Group  II 

Group  III 

Group  IV 

All  farms 

10 

1,980 

122 

12 

1,675 

136 

7 

2,135 

149 

9 
875 
163 

38 

1,651 

Average  number  of  eggs  per  hen 

138 

Average  cost 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Feed 

Dolls. 

1.94 

.53 

Cts. 
19.1 
5.3 

Dolls. 

2.10 
.54 
.18 
.84 
.06 
.29 
.04 

Cts. 

18.6 
4.8 
1.6 
7.4 
0.5 
2.5 
0.4 

Dolls. 

2.21 
.52 
.28 
.72 
.06 
.26 
.07 

Cts. 

17.9 
4.2 
2.2 
5.9 
0.5 
2.1 
0.5 

Dolls. 

2.24 

.68 

Cts. 
16.5 
5.0 

Dolls. 

2.10 
.61 
.06 

.74 
.06 
.27 
.05 

Cts. 

18.2 

5.4 

0.5 

.61 
.05 
.28 
.03 

6.0 
0.6 

2.7 
0.3 

.89 
.06 
.26 
.06 

6.5 
0.4 
1.9 
0.5 

6.5 

0.5 

2.4 

0.4 

3.44 

34.0 

4  05 

35.8 

4.12 

33.3 

4.19 

30.8 

3.89 

33.9 

Relation  of  number  of  eggs  per  hen  to  profits. — There  was  an 
increase  of  153  per  cent  in  net  profits  between  the  first  and  fourth 
groups  of  farms.  This  increase  was  much  greater  in  proportion  than 
the  33.6  per  cent  in  average  number  of  eggs  produced  per  hen 
(table  101). 

TABLE  101 

Eelation  of  Number  of  Eggs  per  Hen  to  Profits  on  38  Sonoma  County, 
California,  Poultry  Farms.     November  1924-October  1925 


Group  I 

Group  II 

Group  III 

Group  IV 

All  farms 

10 
1,980 

122 

12 

1,675 

136 

7 

2,135 

149 

9 
875 
163 

38 

1,651 

Average  number  of  eggs  per  hen 

138 

Average  cost 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
hen 

Per 
doz. 

Dolls. 
3.74 
3.44 

.30 
1.07 

.79 

Cts. 
36.9 
34.0 

2.9 
10.5 

7.8 

Dolls. 
4.37 
4.05 
.32 
1.31 
1.03 

Cts. 
38.6 
35.8 
2.8 
13.9 
10.9 

Dolls. 

4.99 
4.12 
.87 
1.61 
1.35 

Clc. 
40.4 
33.3 
7.1 
13.0 
10.9 

Dolls. 

4.95 
4.19 
.76 
1.84 
1.58 

Cts. 
36.4 
30.8 
5.6 
13.5 
11.6 

Dolls. 
4.39 
3.89 
.50 
1.37 
1.10 

Cts. 
38.3 

33.9 

4.4 

12.0 

9.6 

Group  III,  which  produced  an  average  of  149  eggs  per  hen,  showed 
an  even  greater  net  profit  per  hen  than  did  Group  IV,  which  had  an 
average  of  163  eggs  per  hen.  This  condition  existed  largely  because 
of  the  higher  labor  cost  in  Group  III.     The  relationship  between 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


153 


number  of  eggs  per  hen  and  both  farm  and  labor  income  is  also  quite 
striking.  An  increase  of  50  per  cent  in  egg  production  was  accom- 
panied by  a  72  per  cent  greater  farm  income  and  a  100  per  cent 
increase  in  labor  income. 

Relation  of  number  of  eggs  per  hen  to  other  factors  in  egg  pro- 
duction.— The  general  tendency  apparent  in  table  102  is  for  high  egg 
production  to  be  accompanied  by  heavy  culling. 

TABLE  102 

Kelation  of  Eggs  per  Hen  to  Some  Factors  which  Influence  Profits  on  38 

Sonoma  County,  California,  Poultry  Farms.     November  1924- 

October  1925 


Number  of  farms 

Size  of  flocks : 

Average  number  of  eggs  per  hen 

Per  cent  production 

Per  cent  culled 

Per  cent  mortality 

Per  cent  replacements 

Per  cent  added 

Pounds  grain  and  mash  per  hen 

Pounds  grain  and  mash  per  dozen 

Average  price  of  eggs 

Investment  per  hen 


Group  I 


122 


Group  II 


12 

1,675 

136 


Group  III 


7 

2,135 

149 


Group  IV 


875 
163 


All  farms 


38 

1,651 

138 


33.3 
21.1 
22.4 
42.5 
56.6 
72.4 

6.88 
35.3 

4.65 


37.2 
31.7 
19.7 
46.4 
39.8 
69.7 

6.17 
36.7 

4.90 


40.7 
28.2 
21.2 
43.6 
36.9 
76.2 

6.14 
38.6 

4.34 


44.7 
38.1 
13.3 
48.3 
52.4 
73.0 

5.40 
34.3 

4.38 


37.8 
28.7 
20.1 
44.8 
45.7 
72.7 

6.21 
36.4 

4.58 


Many  poultrymen  believe  that  high  egg  production  is  accom- 
panied by  heavy  mortality.  The  table  above  indicates  that  such  was 
not  the  case  in  this  study,  but  that  those  methods  of  flock  management 
which  caused  high  egg  production  also  maintained  the  health  of  the 
flock.  This  condition  might  also  be  brought  about  by  heavy  culling. 
This  table  also  indicates  that  while  the  pounds  of  grain  and  mash  con- 
sumed per  hen  did  not  vary  greatly  with  numbers  of  eggs  produced, 
that  the  quantity  of  feed  per  dozen  decreased  quite  uniformly  as 
number  of  eggs  per  hen  became  larger. 


HATCHING  AND   COMMERCIAL  EGG    FARMS 

Of  the  38  cooperators  in  the  study,  11  sold  an  average  of  20 
per  cent  of  their  total  egg  production  for  hatching  purposes.  Five  of 
the  hatching  egg  producers  trap-nested  their  flocks  and  six  of  them  did 
not.  A  tabulation  was  made  of  these  groups  in  order  to  make  a  study 
of  the  relative  cost  of  egg  production  (table  103). 


154 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Feed  cost,  as  might  be  expected  in  view  of  the  greater  egg  produc- 
tion, was  highest  for  the  hatching  egg  flocks.  The  same  condition 
holds  regarding  labor  cost,  which  was  31  per  cent  larger  for  the  trap- 
nested  flocks  than  for  hatching  egg  flocks  not  trap-nested,  and 
43  per  cent  larger  than  commercial  egg  farms.  The  total  cost  of  keep- 
ing a  hen  in  the  trap-nested  flocks  was  11.4  per  cent  more  than  in 
flocks  not  trapped  and  25.8  per  cent  higher  than  for  commercial  egg 
producers. 

TABLE  103 

Factors  which  Influenced  Cost  of  Production  on  Hatching  Egg  and 
Commercial  Egg  Flocks.    November  1924-October  1925 


Hatching  egg  flocks 

Commercial  egg 

Trap-nested 
flocks 

Flocks  not 
trap-nested 

flocks 

5 

2,303 

147 

6 

1,626 

143 

27 

1,535 

135 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Dollars 
2  19 
.45 
.51 
.97 
.06 
.32 
.09 

Cents 
18.2 
3.7 
4.3 
8.0 
0.5 
2.7 
0.7 

Dollars 
2.27 
.50 
.25 
.74 
.06 
.27 
.04 

Cents 
19.1 
4.2 
2.1 
6.2 
0.5 
2.2 
0.4 

Dollars 

2.03 

.58 

Cents 
18.1 

5.1 

.68 
.06 
.26 
.04 

6.1 

0.5 

2.3 

0.3 

Total 

4.59 

38  1 

4.12 

34.7 

3.65 

32.4 

Comparative  profits  on  hatching  egg  and  commercial  egg  farms. — 
Trap-nest  breeders  made  a  little  larger  net  profit  per  hen  than  did 
either  hatching  egg  producers  not  trap-nesting  or  commercial  egg 
operators   (table  104).    • 

When  the  farm  income  is  considered,  the  operators  who  trap-nested 
are  but  little  better  off  than  the  commercial  egg  producers,  while 
hatching  egg  producers  not  trapping  made  11  cents  per  hen  greater 
farm  income.  Farm  income  was  smaller  for  trap-nest  operators  than 
either  of  the  other  two,  because  of  the  heavy  investment  in  buildings 
and  equipment.  Had  the  management  of  the  commercial  flocks  been 
such  as  to  have  produced  as  many  eggs  as  did  the  trap-nest  flocks,  their 
farm  income  would  have  been  $1.53  per  hen. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


155 


TABLE  104 

Profits  from  Hatching  Egg  and  Commercial  Egg  Farms 


Hatching  egg  flocks 

Trap-nested 
flocks 

Flocks  not 
trap-nested 

Commercial  egg 
flocks 

5 

2,303 

147 

6 

1,626 

143 

27 

1,535 

Average  number  of  eggs  per  hen 

135 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Per  hen 

Per  doz. 

Gross  income 

Dollars 
5  18 
4.59 
.59 
1  39 
1  06 

Cents 
43.0 
38.1 

4.9 
11.6 

8.9 

Dollars 
4.65 
4.12 
.53 
1.50 
1.24 

Cents 
39.1 
34.7 
4  4 
12  6 
10.9 

Dollars 
4.12 
3.65 
.47 
1  34 
1.08 

Cents 
36.6 

Total  cost 

32.4 

4.2 

Farm  income 

11.9 

9.6 

TABLE  105 

Chickens  on  Farms — Number  by  Divisions  and  States 
1890,  1900,  1910,  1920  and  1925 


Division  and  State 

1890 

1900 

1910 

1920 

1925* 

United  States 

258,871,125 

233,566,021 

280,340,959 

359,537,127 

Geographic  Divisions: 

New  England 

6,315,804 
21,794,146 
58,929,771 
73,772,352 
39,774,247 
36,686,526 
20,423,478 
1,709,813 
5,464,988 

6,440,678 
21,511,436 
58,104,189 
65,364,879 
22,293,912 
22,965,751 
27,333,880 
3,116,639 
6,434,657 

6,840,404 
24,448,840 
69,471,093 
85,192,266 
25,626,503 
24,495,050 
29,176,267 
5,467,234 
9,623,302 

5,803,507 
27,452,439 
84,516,275 
105,347,758- 
36,407,610 
34,091,878 
39,919,045 

9,524,240 
16,474,375 

8,138,168 

Middle  Atlantic 

34,828,825 

East  North  Central 

89,652,590 

West  North  Central 

123,076,892 

East  South  Central  

West  South  Central 

Pacific 

New  England: 

Maine 

1,411,185 
934,322 
789,278 

1,623,605 
482,370 

1,075,044 

8,421,667 
2.990,698 
10,381,781 

13,659,359 

12,307,903 

21,463,525 

5,852,690 

5,646,294 

1,564,853 
870,461 
806,451 

1,625,269 
500,618 

1,073,026 

8,964,736 

1,993,594 

10,553,106 

14,269,525 
11,103,006 
16,600,728 
8,033,531 
8,097,399 

1,704,900 
903,413 
911,730 

1,709,934 
392,704 

1,217,723 

10,232,498 
2,320,439 
11,895,903 

16,850,099 

13,216,024 

20,563,850 

9,698,401 

9,142,719 

1,403,284 
771,233 
799,797 

1,455,193 
253,607 

1,120,393 

10,414,600 
2,534,371 
14,503,468 

20,232,637 
16,754,293 
25,120,643 
10,913,645 
11,495,057 

1,900,008 

New  Hampshire 

1,207,034 

Vermont 

941,014 

Massachusetts 

2,029,819 

Rhode  Island 

361,393 

Connecticut 

1,698,900 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 

13,408,720 

New  Jersey 

4,113,622 

17,306,493 

East  North  Central: 
Ohio 

20,927,460 

Indiana 

17,355,369 

Illinois 

25,738,132 

12,578,979 

13,052,650 

156 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Table  105 — (Continued) 


Division  and  State 


West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

North  Dakota 

South  Dakota 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 

Maryland 

District  of  Columbia. 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Colorado 

Wyoming 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


1890 


448,831 
201,706 
785,848 
804,388 
,292,866 
395,368 
,843,345 

900,212 
,430,859 
10,543 
,576,260 
,197,447 
,507,593 
,873,798 
,357,934 
919,601 

,740,559 
,062,139 
,252,044 
,631,784 

,264,427 
,246,907 
388,427 
,523,717 

233,660 

231,547 

710,942 

73,694 

60,596 

57,224 

279,983 

62,167 

779,972 
,180,765 
,504,251 


1900 


7,730,940 
18,907,673 
14,903,601 
1,409,285 
3,028,700 
7,417,837 
11,966,843 

628,866 
2,113,544 
8,004 
4,590,311 
2,759,585 
3,871,858 
2,664,784 
4,549,144 
1,107,816 

6,849,079 
6,184,210 
4,737,606 
5,194,856 

5,393,157 
3,890,563 
4,487,858 
13,562,302 

531,774 
516,412 
968,761 
142,136 
156,853 
165,200 
534,842 
100,661 

1,196,639 
1,290,818 
3,947,200 


1910 


10,293,843 
22,691,641 
19,910,221 
3,095,026 
4,924,349 
9,010,945 
15,266,241 

785,591 
2,650,750 
7,405 
5,684,703 
3,106,907 
4,566,428 
2,694,970 
4,890,069 
1,239,680 

8,000,457 
7,341,469 
4,589,660 
4,563,464 

5,182,670 
3,259,087 
8,014,938 
12,719,572 

922,540 
1,012,431 
1,644,471 
324,984 
509,890 
252,657 
673,662 
126,599 

2,204,114 
1,753,224 
5,665,964 


1920 


13,212,619 
27,746,510 
24,883,985 
4,328,567 
6,641,572 
11,615,257 
16,919,248 

948,656 
3,436,376 
10,370 
7,860,488 
4,027,510 
7,393,161 
3,954,365 
7,221,788 
1,554,896 

10,477,598 

11,353,647 

5,918,429 

6,342,204 

6,955,132 
3,763,910 
11,137,259 
18,062,744 

2,055,120 
1,654,771 
2,874,721 
620,734 
713,937 
495,065 
954,695 
155,197 

3,547,604 
2,500,123 
10,426,648 


1925* 


30,275,338 
28,222,087 
5,181,246 
7,905,661 
13,499,515 
21,584,965 

1,365,032 

4,198,305 

16,492 


4,349,406 
4,238,254 
2,130,297 


6,281,690 


13,023,482 


2,544,698 

2,028,805 

3,751,618 

808,994 


635,877 

1,366,873 

225,300 

5,393,262 


12,784,512 


*  Preliminary  announcement,  subject  to  correction. 

Figures  for  1890  and  1900  relate  to  June  1;  for  1910  to  April  15  and  for  1920  and  1925  to  January  1. 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1890,  1900,  1910,  and  1920  from  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Four- 
teenth Census,  U.  S.  5:  610,  1922.  Year  1925  from  preliminary  data  furnished  author  by  Census  Bureau. 
Remaining  data  for  January  1,  1925,  is  being  compiled  by  Census  Bureau. 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  157 

TABLE  106 

Chicken  Eggs  Produced — Number  by  Divisions  and  States,  1909,  1919,  1924 

Per  chicken,  1924  (Dozens) 

Total 
Division  and  State  1909  1919  1924*  Per  chicken 

United  States 1,574,979,416        1,654,044,932  1924* 

Geographic  Divisions: 

New  England 54,688,994  37,631,896            56,539,947           6.95 

Middle  Atlantic 159,465,468  151,453,438           216,632,168           6.22 

East  North  Central 389,256,925  400,445,456           441,678,127           4.93 

West  North  Central 442,167,894  474,591,975 

South  Atlantic 134,289,761  144,662,300 

East  South  Central 127,308,625  138,152,110 

West  South  Central 163,644,118  157,008,422 

Mountain 35,233,191  49,993,154 

Pacific 68,944,440  100,106,181 


New  England: 

Maine 14,876,215  9,977,349  13,612,813  7.16 

New  Hampshire 7,469,472  5,005,302  8,181,291  6.78 

Vermont 7,001,897  5,166,689  6,371,751  6.77 

Massachusetts 13,961,352  9,604,274  14,324,666  7.06 

Rhode  Island 2,862,246  1,536,858  2,274,701  6.29 

Connecticut 8,497,812  6,341,424  11,774,725  6.93 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 71,191,449  62,175,162  87,167,262  6.50 

New  Jersey 14,590,530  13,280,104  27,417,182  6.66 

Pennsylvania 73,683,489  75,998,172  102,047,724  5.90 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 100,284,261  102,377,143  112,893,410  5.39 

Indiana 80,028,638  83,101,293  86,974,603  5.01 

Illinois 99,118,224  105,757,907  113,020,993  4.39 

Michigan 59,556,356  55,986,999  68,208,777  5.42 

Wisconsin 50,269,446  53,222,114  60,580,344  4.64 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 53,323,702  60,249,543  76,321,570  4  65 

Iowa 108,662,882  120,697,319  133,776,386  4.42 

Missouri 110,922,159  117,203,569 

North  Dakota 17,069,496  20,820,407  20,987,697  4.05 

South  Dakota 24,641,342  30,351,984  35,103,838  4  44 

Nebraska 46,460,624  49,132,537  54,811,233  4.06 

Kansas 81,087,689  76,136,616  93,144,604  4.31 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 4,395,100  3,908,463  6,380,888  4.67 

Maryland 15,238,591  15,085,691  20,068,986  4.93 

District  of  Columbia 51,062  42,932  68,788  4.17 

Virginia 34,539,082  36,551,269 

West  Virginia 18,948,259  21,708,279  22,124,842  5.09 

North  Carolina 23,179,226  24,841,021 

South  Carolina 10,983,171  12,812,143  11,109,184  2  62 

Georgia 20,606,219  23,181,939 

Florida 6,349,051  6,530,563  9,576,984  4.50 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 43,781,616  42,224,720 

Tennessee 41,244,285  48,707,146 

Alabama 21,945,662  23,436,979  19,462,863  3.10 

Mississippi 20,337,062  23,783,265 


158  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Table  106 — (Continued) 

Total  Per  chicken 

Division  and  State  1909                      1919                     1924*                 1924* 
West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 26,486,526  28,168,285 

Louisiana 14,423,023  13,136,046 

Oklahoma 45,356,592  45,440,017             51,477,222            3.95 

Texas... 77,377,977  70,264,074 

Mountain: 

Montana .". 5,950,015  11,858,042  13,403,326  5.27 

Idaho 6,433,840  8,604,809  11,707,941  5.77 

Wyoming 2,070,799  3,165,743  4,336,912  4.81 

Colorado 10,577,829  14,172,375  18,061,043  5.36 

New  Mexico 2,961,352  3,062,790 

Arizona 1,731,872  2,524,832  3,740,638  5.88 

Utah 4,644,829  5,709,076  9,016,514  6.60 

Nevada 862,655  895,487  1,436,468  6.38 

Pacific: 

Washington 16,373,740  21,356,576  42,058,319  7.80 

Oregon 11,835,462  14,625,720 

California 40,735,238  61,123,835  97,937,325  7  66 

*  Preliminary  announcement,  subject  to  correction. 

Figures  for  1890  and  1900  relate  to  June  1;  for.  1910  to  April  15  and  for  1920  and  1925  to  January  1. 
Sources  of  data:    Years  1890,  1900,  1910,  and  1920  from  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Four- 
teenth Census,  U.  S.  5:  680,  1922.     Year  1925  from  preliminary  data  furnished  author  by  Census  Bureau. 
Remaining  data  for  January  1,  1925,  is  being  compiled  by  Census  Bureau. 


TABLE  107 
*Chickens  Baised — Number  by  Divisions  and  States,  1909,  1919,  1924 

1909  1919                       1924 

United  States 460,611,201  473,301,959 

Geographic  Divisions: 

New  England 10,756,947  8,477,360             13,539,820 

Middle  Atlantic 34,070,656  31,059,165 

East  North  Central 98,895,698  99,251,552 

West  North  Central 118,998,060  126,762,874 

South  Atlantic 65,058,950  65,374,047 

East  South  Central 55,683,712  51,071,455 

West  South  Central 54,701,253  57,328,795 

Mountain 8,431,522  13,037,295 

Pacific 14,014,403  20,939,416 

New  England: 

Maine 2,554,902  1,908,466               2,837,654 

New  Hampshire 1,362,577  1,172,274              2,441,812 

Vermont 1,246,613  1,015,742               1,339,275 

Massachusetts 3,054,934  2,401,068               3,731,769 

Rhode  Island 569,809  433,668                 519,211 

Connecticut 1,968,112  1,546,142              2,670,099 

Middle  Atlantic: 

New  York 13,393,599  11,872,644 

New  Jersey 4,328,628  3,522,776              5,491,704 

Pennsylvania 16,348,429  15,663,745 

East  North  Central: 

Ohio 22,776,881  22,458,227 

Indiana 22,098,966  22,618,296 

Illinois 31,058,772  29,893,565             32,203,811 

Michigan 12,529,844  12,441,555             15,275,548 

Wisconsin 10,431,235  11,839,909             14,204,678 


[BUL.  413                            CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  159 

Table  107 — (Continued) 

1909  1919         1924 

West  North  Central: 

Minnesota 11,412,001  15,062,386            20,352,255 

Iowa 28,970,482  31,076,091             38,184,909 

Missouri 30,413,289  29,363,102 

North  Dakota 3,829,177  5,324,137              5,721,854 

South  Dakota 5,802,869  7,637,808             10,607,376 

Nebraska 14,724,281  15,796,750            20,310,433 

Kansas 23,845,961  22,502,600            29,064,067 

South  Atlantic: 

Delaware 1,401,446  1,204,793              1,582,186 

Maryland 5,419,957  5,257,655              6,025,180 

District  of  Columbia 13,850  14,103                   10,192 

Virginia 15,182,753  14,227,483 

West  Virginia 5,204,967  4,873,287               5,304,124 

North  Carolina 13,765,827  14,047,006 

South  Carolina 8,062,383  9,015,952              7,829,998 

Georgia 13,706,397  14,588,012 

Florida 2,301,370  2,145,756              2,766,369 

East  South  Central: 

Kentucky 17,572,773  15,506,845 

Tennessee 15,865,254  15,554,496 

Alabama 11,382,815  10,179,698              9,527,321 

Mississippi 10,862,870  9,830,416 

West  South  Central: 

Arkansas 9,673,838  9,111,223 

Louisiana 5,830,049  5,570,587 

Oklahoma 15,336,955  16,817,261             19,670,036 

Texas 23,860,411  25,829,724 

Mountain: 

Montana 1,366,835  3,226,538 

Idaho 1,588,794  2,250,489              2,539,708 

Wyoming 494,768  893,857              1,121,118 

Colorado 2,585,132  3,880,873 

New  Mexico 893,831  920,979 

Arizona 374,241  569,325 

Utah 946,647  1,107,446              1,644,266 

Nevada 181,274  187,788                 280,451 

Pacific: 

Washington 3,610,589  4,860,217              7,051,472 

Oregon 2,554,583  3,150,155 

California 7,849,231  12,929,044             14,382,861 

*  The  figures  represent  chickens  raised  to  a  marketable  size.    They  do  not  include  baby  chicks. 

Figures  for  1890  and  1900  relate  to  June  1;  for  1910  to  April  15  and  for  1920  and  1925  to  January  1. 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1890,  1900,  1910  and  1920  from  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Four- 
teenth Census,  U.  S.  5:  682,  1922.  Year  1925  from  preliminary  data  furnished  author  by  Census  Bureau. 
Remaining  data  for  January  1,  1925,  is  being  compiled  by  Census  Bureau. 


TABLE  108 

Chickens  on  Hand,  California,  January  1,  1920,  1925,  and  Value 
January  1,  1925 

1920  1925  1925 

Number              Number  Value 

State  total 10,426,648  12,784,512           $12,557,940 

Alameda 307,092  516,646  495,980 

Alpine 767  919  1,048 

Amador 22,443  21,341  24,329 

Butte 109,815  113,130  113,130 

Calaveras 23,061  22,272  25,390 

Colusa 59.340  58,069  58,069 

Contra  Costa 127,436  158,461  152,123 

Del  Norte 4,662  8,626  9,057 

Eldorado 26,526  32,053  36,540 

Fresno 307,727  313,788  301,236 

Glenn 123,297  105,952  105,952 

Humboldt 69,122  103,005  108,155 

Imperial 264,123  190,656  192,563 

Inyo 20,946  22,870  26,072 

Kern 125,180  160,017  153,616 

Kings 131,184  112,175  107,688 

Lake 29,506  31,011  29,771 

Lassen 25,521  24,280  17,482 

Los  Angeles 1,307,976  1,788,369  1,806,253 

Madera 58,463  79,530  76,349 

Marin 195,712  288,807  277,253 

Mariposa 10,362  9,920  11,309 

Mendocino 83,144  112,545  118,172 

Merced 166,959  185,996  178,556 

Modoc 22,555  20,604  14,835 

Mono 2,282  8,656  9,868 

Monterey 101,514  157,579  151,276 

Napa 123,535  179,244  172,074 

Nevada 24,570  24,631  28,079 

Orange 184,401  224,796  227,044 

Placer 72,667  90,953  103,686 

Plumas 6,291  6,928  4,988 

Riverside 219,791  402,139  406,160 

Sacramento 240,632  449,058  449,058 

San  Benito 64,878  56,673  54,406 

San  Bernardino 191,949  317,211  320,383 

San  Diego 392,359  640,260  646,663 

San  Francisco 3,191               

San  Joaquin 290,239  327,469  314,370 

San  Luis  Obispo 85,459  136,947  131,469 

San  Mateo 57,258  30,883  29,648 

Santa  Barbara 67,838  75,865  76,624 

Santa  Clara 219,729  220,047  211,245 

Santa  Cruz 222,306  387,048  371,566 

Shasta 39,406  44,954  42,257 

Sierra 2,776  2,565  2,924 

Siskiyou 37,423  39,449  37,082 

Solano 94,273  94,049  94,049 

Sonoma 2,986,883  3,244,125  3,114,360 

Stanislaus 330,488  348,839  334,885 

Sutter 82,672  80,690  80,690 

Tehama 82,001  89,780  89,780 

Trinity 9,048  6,834  6,424 

Tulare 373,999  359,873  345,478 

Tuolumne 18,020  25,268  28,806 

Ventura 60,770  101,118  102,129 

Yolo 88,446  96,584  96,584 

Yuba 26,635  32,955  32,955 

Source  of  data:    Year  1920,  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Fourteenth  Census,  U.  S.  6:  pt.  3, 
pp.  350-355.     1925  figures  furnished  to  author  by  Census  Bureau. 


TABLE  109 

Chickens  Eaised,  California  1919,  1924;  Value,  1924 

1919*  1919t  1924f  1924 

Number  Number  Number  Value 

State  total 9,267,144  12,929,044  14,382,861           $12,808,329 

Alameda 284,902  387,300  665,957  559,404 

Alpine 373  544  1,139  1,173 

Amador 17,602  22,617  15,878  16,354 

Butte 99,988  131,877  129,194  111,107 

Calaveras 24,137  31,334  24,299  25,028 

Colusa 46,244  64,241  64,224  55,233 

Contra  Costa 84,287  125,539  174,941  146,950 

Del  Norte 3,178  4,503  8,686  8,686 

Eldorado 24,707  35,706  41,861  43,117 

Fresno 273,308  418,778  390,352  339,606 

Glenn 100,141  139,975  139,009  119,548 

Humboldt 44,224  68,850  135,246  135,246 

Imperial 154,179  244,399  205,527  199,361 

Inyo 7,250  23,592  29,431  30,314 

Kern 93,049  147,208  202,582  176,246 

Kings 124,502  160,265  144,257  125,504 

Lake 27,711  34,843  40,376  33,916 

Lassen • '..  27,793  35,060  34,016  24,151 

Los  Angeles 1,245,012  1,571,943  2,028,010  1,967,170 

Madera 44,033  76,243  101,719  88,496 

Marin 145,689  174,308  334,150  280,686 

Mariposa .". 8,874  12,168  12,152  12,517 

Mendocino 76,305  98,923  141,357  141,357 

Merced 112,965  189,350  202,178  175,895 

Modoc 26,941  31,793  27,795  19,734 

Mono 2,301  3,336  7,055  7,267 

Monterey 65,618  101,107  182,634  153,413 

Napa 121,547  171,538  181,753  152,673 

Nevada 26,583  29,353  24,311  25,040 

Orange 114,890  201,816  260,089  252,286 

Placer 91,645  112,286  111,599  114,947 

Plumas 5,949  9,952  9,588  6,807 

Riverside 201,133  289,253  421,040  408,409 

Sacramento 348,280  502,087  597,696  514,019 

San  Benito 28,826  56,818  60,243  50,604 

San  Bernardino 222,549  278,767  326,410  316,618 

San  Diego 376,187  477,055  747,183  724,768 

San  Francisco 8,036  10,264  

San  Joaquin 342,860  501,435  403,442  350,995 

San  Luis  Obispo 62,794  96,587  147,081  123,548 

San  Mateo 46,949  67,842  37,245  31,286 

Santa  Barbara 56,012  82,001  75,637  73,368 

Santa  Clara 314,123  520,514  484,543  407,016 

Santa  Cruz 218,606  297,424  408,723  343,327 

Shasta 33,375  46,968  80,153  66,527 

Sierra 2,476  2,826  2,093  2,156 

Siskiyou 33,232  42,412  37,240  30,909 

Solano 70,096  107,952  100,068  86,058 

Sonoma 2,512,179  3,461,706  3,111,116  2,613,337 

Stanislaus 246,442  371,251  372,560  324,127 

Sutter 67,293  85,634  86,580  74,459 

Tehama 97,430  118,437  138,351  118,982 

Trinity 7,662  10,019  6,718  5,576 

Tulare 305,267  432,361  401,618  349,408 

Tuolumne 14,738  20,675  29,513  30,398 

Ventura 40,477  62,638  91,208  88,472 

Yolo 67,976  100,317  106,049  91,202 

Yuba 15,949  24,514  38,986  33,528 

Source  of  data:    Year  1919,  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Fourteenth  Census,  U.  S.  6:  pt,  3. 
pp.  350-355.     1925  figures  furnished  to  author  by  Census  Bureau. 
*  Number  actually  reported, 
t  Includes  estimates.    For  purposes  of  comparison  these  columns  should  be  used. 


TABLE  110 

Chicken  Eggs  Produced,  California,  1919,  1924;  Value,  1924 

1919*  1919t  1924f  1924 

Dozen  Dozen  Dozen  Value 

State  total 57,659,313  64,123,885  97,907,325           $31,615,277 

Alameda 2,392,395  2,480,104  4,310,378  1,379,321 

Alpine 6,302  8,502  7,041  2,394 

Amador 92,148  106,567  109,138  37,107 

Butte 523,764  566,789  796,548  238,964 

Calaveras 77,766  83,833  127,374  43,307 

Colusa 188,591  224,225  449,802  134,941 

Contra  Costa 808,819  833,614  1,312,691  420,061 

Del  Norte 16,050  16,546  81,352  26,033 

Eldorado 126,853  134,488  226,839  77,125 

Fresno 1,388,220  1,579,412  1,835,974  569,152 

Glenn 450,997  516,599  626.176  187,853 

Humboldt 377,844  404,883  961,861  307.796 

Imperial 766,949  957,793  876,636  298,056 

Inyo 95,514  142,625  142,039  48,293 

Kern 442,244  597,799  872,093  270,349 

Kings 753,058  800,472  764,473  236,987 

Lake 100,514  111,119  200,641  64,205 

Lassen 121,565  124,682  122,930  40,567 

Los  Angeles 7,793,395  8,190,959  13,825,881  4,700,800 

Madera 173,330  207,707  446,959  138,557 

Marin 1,093,172  1,271,099  2,660,256  851,282 

Mariposa 50,591  53,718  48,975  16,652 

Mendocino 421,224  438,386  859,956  275,186 

Merced 753,476  894,091  1,282,070  397,442 

Modoc 123,518  127,175  119,029  39,280 

Mono 9,281  10,647  69,713  23,702 

Monterey 563,257  622,332  1,304,597  417,471 

Napa 643,335  705,003  1,142,501  365,600 

Nevada 144,310  146,912  160,668  54,627 

Orange 967,747  1,233,742  1,749,587  594,860 

Placer 370,572  389,880  707,796  240,651 

Plumas 27,176  31,900  35,894  11,845 

Riverside 1,120,579  1,237,544  2,660,149  904,451 

Sacramento 1,218,376  1,285,391  4,787,856  1,436,357 

San  Benito 367,415  426,031  456,218  145,990 

San  Bernardino 943,471  1,043,234  2,045,377  695,428 

San  Diego 2,305,717  2,498,363  5,503,675  1,871,250 

San  Francisco 19,829  20,352  

San  Joaquin 1,183,000  2,837,234  2,238,251  693,858 

San  Luis  Obispo 390.871  429,439  782,378  250,361 

San  Mateo 263,097  281,232  195,984  62,715 

Santa  Barbara 299,619  376,099  486,674  165,469 

Santa  Clara 1,109,532  1,252,590  1,528,667  489,173 

Santa  Cruz 1,523,711  1,733,236  3,654,120  1,169,318 

Shasta 205,340  235,986  303,035  96,971 

Sierra 15,603  15,746  11,707  3,980 

Siskiyou 182,899  193,296  204,504  65,441 

Solano 368,548  399,905  602,572  180,772 

Sonoma* 19,684,744  20,480,588  26,313,098  8,420,191 

Stanislaus 1,388,135  1,618,699  3,055,830  947,307 

Sutter 362,042  394,394  535,378  160,613 

Tehama 382,580  418,621  558,970  167,691 

Trinity 43,514  50,532  36,869  11,798 

Tulare 1,442,416  1,756,199  2,170,034  672,711 

Tuolumne 72,209  77,375  148,348  50,438 

Ventura 275,230  299,597  639,976  217,592 

Yolo 520,829  571,525  569,556  170,867 

Yuba 106,030  127,080  180,231  54,069 

*  Number  actually  reported. 

t  Includes  estimates.    For  purposes  of  comparison  these  columns  should  be  used. 
t  The  number  of  eggs  reported  as  produced  does  not  equal  the  number  of  eggs  shipped  from  l^etaluma, 
see  Table  33.    The  author  believes  the  Census  figures  are  perhaps  a  little  low.    The  above  table,  how- 
ever, is  useful  for  purposes  of  comparison. 

Sources  of  data:  Year  1920,  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census,  Fourteenth  Census,  U.  fc>.  6:  pt.  6, 
pp.  350-355.    1925  figures  furnished  to  author  by  Census  Bureau. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


163 


TABLE  111 

Net  Wholesale  Quotations,  Fresh  Extras,  Los  Angeles,  1910-1926 
(Cents  per  dozen) 


Month 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

January 

February 

37.8 
27.3 
25.0 
26.0 
26.9 
27.6 
32.3 
35.8 
42.5 
45.8 
49.8 
40.8 

36.3 
31.0 
23.2 
23.1 
23.5 
25.2 
29.0 
34.2 
37.8 
45.3 
47.4 
42.5 

33.8 
26.8 
24.6 
24.0 
20.8 
26.0 
28.8 
31.5 
38.8 
43.6 
50  0 
39.2 

34.6 
26.1 
22.6 
21.3 
22.1 
24.5 
26.6 
32.5 
37.3 
44  1 
50  0 
43.6 

43.2 
31.8 
23.2 
25.1 
25.8 
27.5 
29.8 
35.0 
37.7 
48.8 
47.2 
46.6 

34.2 
27.9 
22.3 
23.9 
25.0 
23.8 
27.5 
32.0 
36.0 
43.7 
47.8 
40.4 

36.0 
29.0 
22.2 
24.5 
25.6 
27.3 
28.0 
33.4 
39.0 
48.0 
50.8 
41.8 

37.7 
29.7 

March 

27.1 

April 

32.5 

32  9 

33  1 

July 

35.6 

41  3 

47.2 

54  8 

November 

56.0 

52.5 

34.8 

33.2 

32.3 

32.1 

35.1 

32.0 

33.8 

40.0 

Month 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

53.5 
41.3 
38.0 
38.0 
38.4 
38.6 
45.3 
51.2 
57.3 
68.2 
74.5 
71.8 

56.3 
38.5 
40.0 
45.6 
48.8 
48.3 
51.8 
54.4 
60.0 
71.2 
75.8 
68.8 

56.5 
44.3 
39.2 
40.3 
43.8 
45.0 
51.3 
56.3 
66.3 
76.5 
80.6 
73.0 

59.3 
36.5 
31.2 
27.3 
25.5 
29.0 
34.8 
40.9 
47.5 
61.8 
62.8 
55.3 

42.0 
28.0 
26.1 
27.0 
26.8 
28.8 
30.5 
32.6 
42.8 
57.2 
60.3 
55.8 

41.1 
28.0 
26.8 
29.3 
30.3 
30.6 
30.6 
37.6 
48.0 
56.8 
56.3 
49.0 

40.0 
27.5 
25.9 
27.2 
27.8 
33.1 
34.4 
37.8 
45.3 
54.8 
56.0 
48.8 

53.3 
34.8 
31.4 
31.1 
33.1 
36.0 
39.9 
43.2 
46.7 
53.6 
52.3 
45.1 

32.4 

28.4 

March 

27.5 

April 

29.3 

May 

30.2 

32.6 

July 

34.2 

August 

39.2 

September 

44.3 

50.8 

51.3 

55.0 

56.1 

42.7 

38.2 

38.7 

38.2 

41.7 

Source  of  data:  Monthly  figures  are  based  on  arithmetic  average  of  Wednesday  quotations  appear- 
ing in  California  Cultivator.  Computations  involving  use  of  wholesale  prices  are  based  upon  the  above 
table,  except  where  otherwise  noted.    All  quotations  are  net. 


164 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  112 

Net  Wholesale  Quotations,  Fresh  Extras,  San  Francisco,  1910-1926 

(Cents  per  dozen) 


Month 


January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Average 


1910 


32.5 
26.9 
21.6 
24.5 
25.3 
27.0 
29.8 
35.1 
40  6 
46.6 
54.5 
41.1 


33. 


1911 


31.6 

25.8 
18.7 
19.5 
21.4 
21.7 
25.9 
31.1 
38.3 
45.6 
49.6 
39.5 


30.7 


1912 


34.0 
24.2 
20.3 
21.1 
29.9 
21.5 
25  0 
28.4 
37.3 
44.3 
47.8 
34.1 


29 


1913 


19 

18 

19 

21 

24 

26.8 

32.0 

38.9 

48.7 

55.6 

44.3 


31.5 


1914 


41.5 

26.3 
20.6 
22.1 
22.9 
24.4 
27.4 
33.5 
39.9 
47.0 
47.8 
45.7 


33.3 


1915 


29.3 
22.3 
20.8 
21.9 
23.1 
22.6 
25.2 
31.0 
36.2 
46  3 
51.8 
39.7 


30. 


1916 


48.6 


31.7 


1917 


37.5 
33.5 
26.2 
32.1 
33.3 
31.1 
34.5 
42.7 
46.5 
52.6 
56.3 
52.0 


Month 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

57.7 
38.6 
36.6 
36.4 
36.7 
39.0 
43.7 
50.2 
57.4 
70.0 
75.6 
81.4 

56.6 
37.6 
38.5 
43.8 
47.2 
46.5 
49.5 
53.4 
62.5 
72.5 
78.7 
71.6 

57.7 
45.0 
39.1 
41.2 
41.9 
43.1 
51.8 
55.5 
67.2 
76.9 
80.0 
69.2 

55.1 
34.1 
30.1 
25.6 
23.1 
26.8 
37.3 
41.0 
47.5 
59.0 
59.7 
50.6 

35.3 
27.4 
23.5 
25.2 
24.8 
25.8 
26.4 
30.0 
44.5 
58.4 
56.4 
48.5 

37.2 
27.7 
24.7 
27.2 
28.3 
27.8 
28.7 
37.6 
46.6 
55.8 
51  2 
44.3 

36.4 
26.6 
22.8 
24.6 
25  1 
30.0 
32.4 
35.7 
45.9 
51.9 
51.9 
47.4 

46  8 
28.6 
30.1 
29.5 
31.7 
34.9 
38.4 
40.9 
45.6 
53.9 
53.1 
43.9 

33.6 

26.0 

26.6 

27.5 

May 

28.1 

June 

30.9 

July 

33.5 

38.1 

43.6 

50.2 

51.9 

54.9 

55.7 

40.8 

35.5 

36.4 

35.9 

39.8 

Source  of  data:  Monthly  net  wholesale  quotations,  computed  by  obtaining  arithmetic  mean  of 
Wednesday  quotations  appearing  in  the  Pacific  Rural  Press.  Only  net  quotations  were  used,  the  dis- 
counts from  January  1,  1918  to  December  31,  1925  being  deducted.  All  computations  based  on  whole- 
sale prices  at  San  Francisco  are  based  upon  the  above  table  except  where  otherwise  noted. 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


165 


TABLE  113 

Net  Wholesale  Quotations  of  Pullet  Eggs,  Los  Angeles,  1917-1925 


Month 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

34.2 
27.1 
25.3 
28.5 
29.4 
30.6 
32.5 
37.0 
38.6 
43.8 
49.8 
47  5 

50.7 
39.8 
35.7 
36.0 
36.1 
35.1 
42.6 
46.5 
50.0 
56.8 
64.3 
66.2 

53.3 
36.7 
36.5 
43.4 
47.0 
44.3 
45.4 
50 .3 
49.5 
59.2 
62.3 
59.4 

51.0 
41.5 
34.8 
36.8 
39.3 
39.0 
45.3 
48.2 
57.0 
63.3 
70.4 
67.5 

56.0 
34.5 
28.0 
24.0 
20.6 
26.1 
29.3 
35.2 
36.3 
44.0 
48.8 
50.3 

38.8 
24.9 
22.5 
24.3 
22.2 
25.4 
30.8 
25.9 
31.8 
41.2 
46.3 
47.5 

37.8 
25.0 
24.0 
25.1 
26.1 
26.8 
26.5 
32.4 
36.8 
42.4 
43.8 
43.8 

36.2 
25.1 
22.5 
24.5 
22.8 
28.3 
29.6 
33.5 
35.5 
42.4 
44.0 
44.2 

51.3 
33.0 

27.8 
27.6 
30.1 
32.0 
33.1 
34.6 
36.5 
39.3 
42.7 
38.2 

28  1 

25.7 

22.6 

25.8 

25.7 

27.5 

July 

27.7 

29.3 

34.7 

39.0 

35.4 

46  7 

48.9 

49.5 

36.1 

31.8 

32.5 

32.4 

35.5 

Source  of  data:     Monthly  quotations  computed  by  author  by  using  arithmetic  mean  of  the  weekly 
wholesale  quotations  in  the  California  Cultivator.    All  quotations  are  on  a  net  basis. 


TABLE  114 

Wholesale  Quotations  of  Pullet  Eggs,  San  Francisco,  1911-1925 


Month 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

31.3 
21.0 

19.0 
18.6 
17.7 
17.1 
21.8 
23.8 
30.8 
32.5 
39.8 
28.5 

26.4 
18.5 
16.1 
17.1 
18.0 
22.3 
23.1 
26.1 
31.8 
39.8 
48.8 
43.1 

39.1 
24.8 
18.5 
19.6 
21.0 
21.9 
23.4 
27.5 
33.1 
37.6 
38.1 
36.4 

29.4 
20.9 
18.1 
18.6 
20.3 
19.8 
22.8 
25.9 
31.7 
38.3 
43.3 
34.2 

30.9 
24.9 
17.6 
19.3 
20.3 
22.4 
24.8 
28.7 
33.1 
41.3 
39.6 
34.3 

35.2 
27.8 
25.1 
28.9 
30.1 
29.3 
31.8 
39.0 
43.6 
44.8 
52.0 
45.9 

53.5 

February 

38.8 

March 

34.9 

35.2 

18.6 
18.3 
20.9 
24.7 
27.8 
35.9 
42.6 
33.6 

35.0 

June 

35.9 

July 

41.1 

47.0 

52.8 

October 

61.3 

62.3 

72.7 

25.2 

27.6 

28.4 

26.9 

28.1 

36.1 

47.5 

Month 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

53.6 
34.4 
36.7 
41.5 
44.6 
41.3 
43  5 
49.5 
53.1 
58.1 
61.2 
63.5 

49.9 
40.0 
34.5 
36.5 
36.5 
35.4 
44.1 
46.7 
59.0 
61.8 
68.8 
61.5 

50.9 
30.5 
27.4 
22.8 
19.2 
23.1 
29.0 
33.4 
35.6 
43.2 
47.8 
43.6 

31.5 
24.6 
20.7 
22.4 
21.8 
22.4 
22.1 
24.0 
32.5 
42.2 
44  5 
43.5 

34.1 
24.7 
21.5 
24.4 
24.4 
25.0 
24.4 
30.6 
34.7 
40.5 
39.5 
38.6 

30.2 
23.3 
21.0 
21.3 
20.6 
26.1 
28.2 
31.7 
36.9 
40.8 
42.8 
42.1 

44.4 
25.4 
27.6 
26.2 
28.7 
31.7 
32.7 
34.2 
36.6 
42.4 
41.2 
38.3 

31.6 

February 

23.4 

March 

22.7 

April 

23.1 

23.5 

25.0 

July 

27.0 

30.5 

September 

35.0 

October 

38.3 

48.4 

47.9 

33.9 

29.4 

30.2 

30.4 

30.8 

Source  of  data:  Monthly  quotations  computed  by  author  by  using  arithmetic  mean  of  the  weekly 
wholesale  quotations  in  the  Pacific  Rural  Press.  All  quotations  since  Jan.  1,  1918,  were  first  reduced 
to  a  net  basis. 


166 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


pi 

<u 

.4 

«H 

O 

n 

o> 

,Q 

a 

^ 

a 

be 

g 

.5  « 

bc£ 

2  ^> 

sx> 

Jh 

CSrtf 

—  <tf 

O   1-H 

o 

o  gs 

Z"r  w 

£1  bX) 

<M    o 

3  «H 

o  ° 

"S  £ 

§1 

tH      3 

IO 

<H    p) 

CI 

C5 

"5  G> 

i— 1 

g-  . 

05 

pa 

^  0H 

«i 

Ph 

03    »>    bfi 

®    «    5 

ft 

'SrS^ 

1— 1 

H 

o 

03 

O 

OT3    O) 

TO   ~        Sh 

hJ 

"=»  &  ft 

w 

W 

+a  -H   V 

ft 

o 

firs 
epoi 
n  th 

fc 

©      fH      Q 

o 

H 

U 

p 
p 

o 

made  th 
e  in  the 
flock 

w 

bC 

Ph 

pi     - 

■as 

E/3   i — l 

r&      Ph 

— 

-a 

> 

Bl 

~ 

a 

oj 

TJ 

•-1 

r/! 

o 

c 

u>> 

rt 

o  oj 

S3 


31 


e3  U3 


h^i 


to 


a)  m^; 

I|l||.a 


Ph   o3 


-<  c  o.Sft 


3SH08,BKa 


o3_Q  £tJ  orC 


«^ 


o  1 


a  ■ 

3  bO 

>Z  00 

*5  4) 


•PS  **  S 

5S  O.C3 


ag 


&.£• 


■"  -^    os   o 


Kl    IO    »    ^    19    CO 


■<*    tO    i-c    00    IN    IO 

N    N    ^    IN    M    » 


mOWON 
CO    tb    IO    io    io 


CO  U3  M  'f  W 


N  «5  O)  tO  t 


00  <N  OO 


o  to 

OO  lO 


in  m  ^  n 
d  oid  oJ 


IN  to  o  ■**< 


OiOOOSOsOOOO 


O  «  H  IO 

O  CO  «-H  »-t 


IN  iH  IN  O  OS 


>H  cq  IN  <t  N 


K5  Ol  «  O) 
O  T*  i-i  CO 


CO  <N 

d  s 


0O  IN  "O  S 


fti  § 


<»  .-h  CM  OS  OO  t~- 


CO  tO  OS  IO 

»  oi  h  d 


OiOOOOtOiOINCO 


■"    *    OO    ifl 


IO    o 
»o  to 


(N    IO    00    Oi 

us    w   ^    CO 


N    OO    HO    115    H    H 
CO    00    Tjl     <N    O     -tf 


tO    IO    OS    t^. 


SOON 


tOiO^<NtO^(NOcO 
t^»-ctOCOrtlOOiO-H 


llJOOOOOJCOOONNIN 
OONNNNCONCDCO 


(ONMNNNOtIIN 
W^COlOMOfflOlN 


0ON<jlM 


CO    CO    ^*    CO 


tH    M<    00    (N 

115    CO    M    N 


o  o  o  >o 


lO^^MiO^iOO 


"5    IO 


^N00U5 
»    IO    U5    ^ 


OS    S    OO    IO 


tO    IO    OS    IO 

to  to  IO  to 


00    to    00    CO 
S   OO   s   t>i 


o  o 


OO    i-H    00    (N 
CT)    OS    O    00 


<N    <N    -H    O 


IN    N    OO    N 

OS    O     OS     OS 


-*    IO 
<N    IO 


CM    IO    <N    IO 


to   IO   to 

H     Tf     CO 


O   S   to   t-- 


OO    i-H    CO    o 

H     H     N     W 


CO    to 
to    IO 


00    O    00    IO 

s  to  to  o 


IO    00 
lO    CO 


<N    IO    b- 

tO    IO    lO 


CO    OS    (N    CO    f 


TflfflNIONNIOlO 
OOSOiOM<tOOtO 


N    Ol    h    IO 


CO    CO    ^    IN 


Tt<    CO    IN    CO 


OtOlOINl^-OOOlO 


S 
.  c3 
oj   W 

•I  ^ 

C3      OJ 


i-i  t3,    o    b 


t3  a 


o   o 


2    !*  t^  W 

^  *  § 

53    «  -a    o    «  oj  as 

>  S  rt  O  5?  55  Pm 


)    03     03 


5  §     «     C3 

55  ii'OilotaoS 
ojc3(hojooo;^ 
PS^^55»Ofe 


J     V 


Is 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY   INDUSTRY 


167 


a  o 
a  a 

m  c 

bD—' 


0>  C 

•so 


5  e 


in  n  N 

«  m  w 


CO    CO 
CO    CO 


CO    CM    -*c 
ll)    CO    CO 


0,8 


us   O    — I 
t^    00    00 


O    M    M 


o  o 


CO    00    CO 
©    O    O 


CO    CM     i-H 
CM    CO    CO 


P-S.3& 


BT3 

-a  c3 


01  c 

Oh  cj 


S)c3  C.S"  C 

Sj^Q    Ctf-rt    CD 


>3"     o^ 
<  c"o.Sa 


bO 
>,«     C  a>  3     -<m 


bC^ 


c.51^ 


o| 

<D-~ 
^_c3 

3  bJD 
ht  bC 


K"g^ 

CD  •**    O 


'cp^ 


o 

G   C  oo 


fi  o  u  S  g      o 

S    !-.'£   US    CM 
!Zo-0G.c3       -" 


S  °  g  b  bo.H  o-g    o 

3  fe  S  §,C^3  «  C.Sg 


i~~  •"*!   a> 
>c   *   «5 


CO     CO 

©  o 


©    CO     CM 

©   oo  oo 


©  o 

US    US 


CD    O    CM 

<*    U5    U5 


CO     <T0    00 
CM     CM    CM 


O)    to    H  OO  o 

OO    ^    H  115  M 

N    0O    N  ■*  ■>* 

cm"  cm"  cm  co  co 


CO    CO    H)    CO     U0 


-^     l^     CO     1) 

co   co   <— i    co 

.-H     U0     t—     US 


lO    Ifl    11)    CO    w 


00    00    —i    CO 


»l)     CO 

CM    CM 


t*    «5    Oi    O) 
CM    CM    CM    CM 


CM    CO    i-l    »-l 

CO    CO    CO    CO 


CO    oo 
U)    US 


CO    CO    CO    <M 
N    !D    Ifl    lO 


CM    O 
00    t- 


co   co  «)  © 

©    00    t^    t^ 


CM    00    CO 

©   oo  oo 


O    00    CM 

HOO 


O    O    I—    CO 
•*    CO    CM    CM 


lO    CM     00 


CO    <M    ■*     CM 

U)    !B    113    11) 


*- 


CO    CO 

us  co 


«    ifl    H)    11) 


X    CD    N    (O 
N    O    H    tN 


OS     t^ 

CO     H) 


CO    CO    oo    o 
CO    CO    CO    II) 


O    u) 
CM    CM 


O    00    O    y-l 
CM    ^H    CM    CM 


to    O   00    Ml 


O    -"»<    •**    t~-    o    © 


CO    O     CM    t-i    O    t~»    US 

N    O0    O    ■*    0O 


-*    <f    N    O!    O 


CO     CM  00  "<*<     1-4  CO     H) 

<-h   co  us  oo   oo  r^-  o 

-<*<    .-t  CO  >o    CO  ©_   CO 

m<"  t>T  nS  co"  us  us  us 


S§ 


C   .S 
■»   S»    2 

•2  .£?  £ 

o    S    o 

r  A  .S    «  geg 

o  £  3  S  £ 


■g  0  Q  |  _ 

gj  "£  3  -o  c 

r^    O  o    cu  03 

S  ^  w  55  M 


T3J 


(1 

~! 

d 

CJ 

0 

ft 

0 

0 

5 

a 

^j 

y 

d 

0) 

u 

H 

a 

0 

a 
-1 

0 

QQ 

m 

>> 

A 

sd 

00 

0 

Cu 

S 

r, 

0 

(0 

^J 

c 

<l 

r/j 

pq 

3 

bf 

<H 

cc 

3 

Q 

*j| 

M 

•3*3 


168 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


fee 

ft,     S 


00    OS    OO    O    O    *-H    CO 

CO    i*     U5    115    ■*    rtl    ■* 


-H      t^      -H      O      Tj<      CO      O 

CO    rt    ffl    (N    'J"    N    1(5 


s  e 
a*  8 


to   as  i-i  -h 


U5    !C    ffil    115    M    K5 


t^OOst^r^cOO^ti 
^^•*NI15010N 


lO    S    H    N    N    N    N 

to   to   to   to  «5   Ifl   to 


t^    CO    CM    !>•    CO 

ll5»td»NMON 


ft,  8 


115    N    M   lO    o>    m    to 
tO    tO    tO    tO    11)    to    to 


tONMONlOtON 
M^ttOlONXNO 


N    IM    M    OO    ffl    U5 


■OCOlOINtJlONN 
CCMNOOtioCOIN 


j^  ■"  CO  <M 


r. 

0 

Qj 

a 

*c 

CJ 

'•& 

a 

p, 

a 

hi 

-fl 

> 

ed 

fl 

o 

0J 

> 

6 

ft,  8 


—i  CO  O  CM  CO 

OS  O  OS  OS  OS 


lO  »-  ■*  -H 


r-l  OS  OS  OS  CO 


&H  8 


O  to  O  O  <-i 

H  O  W  M  O 


*  «  ^  H  O!  O  •* 
^H  CO  O  CO  i-i  o  o 


ft.  8  3 


N  SIN  NNIN 

w  h  w  n  n  co 


MnNCCMlQN^I 
(MCOOIOCOOSCOOS 


^    T»l    CM 


cmcmcocoos'— icsco 
cmo-^os^hos'^o 


^  ~    00    115 


5  £ 

a,  8  3 


Ol    H    00    H    Tf    N 
O     -H     OS     -^f     CO     O 


^^ton^oioiio 

CMOOlt5t-~OSOt^ 


0  ~ 

01  CO 

C3CC 


tt>  s 

Q_j    <U    U5 


115    t—    115    OS    o    t— 

115    tO    N    tO    tO    115 


COCOOSCOOsOtMOO 
NtOM^CONNCO 


^8 


00    CM    -H    tpJI     CM     OS 
■■*     "*    1C    CO    CO    rjt 


115    CM     OS    •* 


N    N    II)    »    O    O 
CO    CO    «5    •*    CO    CO 


«S3    3 
lS3°h 

.5  O-S  «  °CM 

3       Ej3  aas 
<5  ? 


O  5- 

3SS 


iDHtoooiomnooNS 
o-HoitNcc^ncoioo) 


OS  CO  ^  CM  OS  OS    CO 

o  oo  cm  -*  as  os  io 

i-H  t^_  U5_  OS  U5_  00    00 

t^T  H5  115"  CO  t^  as"  115 


»C.S»  C 


1  01  >-  .3  12  h  s  co .«  r.' 
Pf3  3  =  £-    fc  g  3 


N    115    N    O    tO    115 


?  ~ 


~  CM 

C  as 


»hT3 
S   R 


-^  G:    -." 


•gas^  g 
b~  o>  C 

Q        - 


OOOO  —  OOS  CM 
h  lO  M  N  t<3  M  O  tO 
CM*   CM*   rt"   »-,    .-,"    cm"   CO    i-T 


•^OOOCM-hOcMcOOOOO^H 

-Hasosr^tococMco-^CMt^- 

CM     O    CM       ~ 


Sola's  c§ 

3  fe.fl  co  £.S  S 


co   as  10   t^-   t-h 


1  ■»"  co  ^j      -w  c: 


N  h  co  h  n 


O     to     H 


o)    5  >£: 

M  H  <j 


£ 
.    o 

.co    -J     co   A 


vr     O     0>   M     u 

S  ^  H  O  <J 


S    .5    T3       «      OB 

a  o  q  ^  § 


'S  .2  w  >? 

p-p       *<  CO  -Tj  *rt 

M  Jfl  S  -^  fl 

o^-ss-c-SS^sg^  "a  o 


[Bul.  413 


CALIFORNIA    POULTRY    INDUSTRY 


169 


TABLE  116 


EGG  EQUIVALENTS 


1  doz.  eggs  in  shell 
V/i  lbs.  liquid  whole  e 
2\i  lbs.  liquid  yolk 
7  lbs.  liquid  albumen 


12  chicken  eggs  (average  U.  S.) 

12  guinea  eggs 

12  duck  eggs 

12  turkey  eggs 

12  goose  eggs 

20  chicken  eggs  (average  French) 

120  chicken  eggs  or  a  great  hundred  (English 

Domestic  and  Danish  Domestic  average)         equal 


equal 

1  lb.  of  frozen  or  liquid 

equal 

1  lb.  dried  whole  egg. 

equal 

1  lb.  dried  yolk. 

equal 

1  lb.  dried  albumen. 

5G  WEIGHTS 

equal 

\y%  lbs. 

equal 

17  or  18  ounces. 

equal 

2  to  3  lbs. 

equal 

2V2  to  3  lbs. 

equal 

4^  to  6  lbs. 

equal 

1  kilogram  or  2.2  lbs. 

16  lbs. 


QUANTITY  OF  EGGS  IN  A  CASE  AND  FREIGHT  CAR 


30  dozen  eggs 
400-500  cases 
100  to  120  doz.  eggs 


equal 
equal 
equal 


1  case  (American). 

1  car  (American). 

1  case  (English  and  Continental) 


MINIMUM  WEIGHT  OF  FREIGHT  CAR  OF  POULTRY  AND  EGGS 


Minimum  car  load  (live  poultry) 
Minimum  car  load  (dressed  poultry) 
Minimum  car  load  (eggs)* 


equal 
equal 
equal 


18,000  lbs. 
20,000  lbs. 
20,000  lbs. 


*  Intrastate  and  certain  southwestern  states.    Transcontinental — 26,000  lbs. 

Source  of  data:    Furnished  to  author  by  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C. 


170 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


o 

EH 

<j 

fc   ^ 

«  10 

O    CXI 

fe    Oi 

3    C 
< 

O    m 

~   yA 

ft 

<     O 

M  o 

E     & 

o  s 

3  B 

ft  o 

H     g 

h  n 

W     «3 

^    9> 

Q  a 

<t]     m 

S     J 

M 

O   a 

*    fc 

<   m 

00     W 

ft  -g 

£  § 

«<ft 

<i    ^ 

M   § 

!> 

8  IS 

tf   «i 

ft       « 

M   H 

w 

Q 

fc 

«4 

EH 

H 

o 

H 

03 

N 

s^ 

O    O    O    O    O    O    O 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

©  ©_  ©  o_  o  ©_  o 

31 

oo"  oo"  oo   oo   oo   oo"  00 

ft 

a 

3 

o 

a 

ft 

O    O    O    O    0O    «5    CO 

£ 

OO    00     00     OO     (N     *     •* 

o 

■*■*•*  ^   •*  't  ^ 

3 

hi 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

o 

i— I     i-i     ,— I     i— 1     OS    >0     CM 

-*      H      -H      --H      OS      O      O 

Hi 

g 

.2 

O    O    O    CO    o    o    o 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

03 

o   »o  ©   >o   o   >o   lO 

l-l    iH    l-l    l-l    o    o    oa 

6% 

0) 

ti 

b 

a 

G  "S 

o   o  o  ©  o  o  o 

^ 

J-'23 

o  o   o  o  o  o   o 

o 

o  ©^  ©  ©_  ©  o_  ©_ 

g3 

ft 

I1 

'2 

o 

T3 
0) 
CO 

(N    IM    Ol    IN     N     N    N 

m 

V 

S3 
O 

P 

b3 

ft 

o  ©  o  o  o  o  © 

s 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

o 

ro   co   co   co   co   co   co 

3 

ri 

CD 

fin 

J 

«5    lO    lO    IC    lO    lO    O 

o 

ft 

»ra   »o   tf»   »o   03   cni   «-i 

lO    lO    tO    lO    ^     >C    lO 

a 

o 

to 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

©    iO    ©    to    O    ©    «5 

05    Oi    03     Oi    00     05    t^ 

a 

P3 

fl- 

3  "S 

o  o  o  o  o  ©  o 

rf  -G 

o  o  o   o   o  o  o 

©  ©_  ©^  ©_  ©_  ©  o 

on 
fat) 

1*8 

(O    O    tO    ■>!<"   ID    (O    (O 

CM     CM     CM    CM     CM     CM     CM 

w 

a 

ft 

o  o  o  ©  o  o  o 

CO    CO    CO    O     CO    CO    CO 

o 

CM     CM     CM     CO    CM    CM    CM 

ft 

O    O    ©    O    0O    lO    CO 

o 

Hi 

OO    OO    0C    00    CM    >o    -*t< 

p* 

ft 

h! 

S 
o 

o 
H 

ork,  N. 
,  Mass. 
elphia, 
.  Fla 

rleans, 
fc,  Mich 
o.  Ill 

"$■       03     •-*      ri       l>     +?     •« 

CD      O    -A    -h      <D      4)    j3 

»    « 

Ph 

a 

fc 

0 

u 

m 
w 
W 

ft 

w  ^ 

^  2 

^  ft 

<i      03 

fc    o 

o'Z 

ft  2 
w  ^ 

a  w 


>>>>>>>>>.;>>>> 


G  C  fi  fl 


c  a 


3  3  3  3  S  3  3 

c  cr  c  cr  o"  c  o* 

a   a   a   a  a   a   a 

<  <  <  <j  <  <j  <^ 


o  »o  O  O  O  us  »o 

oo  i— i  co  oo  r-~  oo  oi 

CM  CO  CM  CO  O  O  Oi 


>>>.>>>>>>>>>> 


c    c    c    a    a 

c3     c3     c3     c3     c3 


C     CJ 
c3     o3 

O*    CT    C    O*    C    C    O* 
fl     C     C     C     G     CJ     ej 

<3  <U  <J  <J  <j  <<  <j 


CO    CO    co    >o    ■»}<    CO    Tf 
O    O    O    co    -*    O    Tt< 

«5    O    «3    O    ■*    U5    Tf 


>)>>>>>>>>>>>> 


c3     c3     c3     c3     c3     &     ci 
-33-3-3-3-3-3 

O"    CJ    O"    CT    C    O"    O* 

c   g   c   c    a    a    a 
<  <  <  <  <  <  < 


tO    CO    O    1(3    *    tO    ■* 


fc  i     of      • 

,*  ■!  -a  -3  §  §  ft 

■^  <<  3  ft  ^        - 

o  -  "3     .  T^  *T   o 

>*  S  -5  -a  o  -s  a1 


O    "    03" 

HI! 

I  193 


P       03     '•« 

4)     O   -G   S 

fc  ft  ft  a 


3  s  r  2 


fc  Q  o 


[BUL.  413  CALIFORNIA   POULTRY   INDUSTRY  171 


INDEX 

PAGE 

Summary 3 

The  general  situation 5 

Importance  of  the  industry 5 

Importance  of  poultry  in  California 7 

Geographic  distribution  of  the  poultry  industry 8 

Mississippi  Valley 8 

Northeastern  States 10 

Pacific  Coast  States 10 

Rocky  Mountain  and  Southern  States 10 

Development  of  the  poultry  industry 11 

United  States 11 

California 15 

Trend  toward  egg  breeds  in  the  Middle  West 19 

Poultry  other  than  chickens 20 

Prices  and  purchasing  power  of  eggs 20 

Egg  prices  and  general  commodity  prices  United  States 20 

Purchasing  power  of  eggs,  California 26 

Comparative  prices  of  eggs  in  certain  cities 30 

Purchasing  power  of  eggs  and  other  agricultural  commodities,   United 

States 32 

Monthly  index  of  purchasing  power,  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles 33 

Seasonal  variation  in  prices  of  extra  and  pullet  eggs 35 

The  egg-feed  price  ratio 36 

Egg-feed  price  ratio,  Petaluma 36 

Seasonal  variation 40 

Sources  of  California  poultry  feeds 42 

Price  relationships  between  grades  of  eggs 43 

Relations  between  the  quotations  of  pullet  and  extra  eggs  on  the  San 

Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  market 43 

Seasonal  variation 44 

Per  capita  yearly  consumption  of  eggs 47 

United  States...., 47 

Comparison  of  United  States  with  certain  foreign  countries 47 

Egg  products 48 

United  States  standards  for  eggs 48 

Commercial  hatcheries  in  California 49 

Receipts  of  eggs 54 

San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles 54 

Daily  receipts  and  prices,  San  Francisco 61 

Pullet  and  extra  eggs 63 

Egg  shipments 67 

Markets  for  California  eggs 67 

Shipping  centers  for  interstate  movements 69 

Shipments  from  Petaluma 70 

The  New  York  market 73 

Comparative  prices,  New  York  and  San  Francisco 83 


172  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

PAGE 

Preference  for  white  and  brown  eggs 85 

Cold  storage  holdings 86 

Shell  eggs 86 

Frozen  eggs 89 

Prices  and  purchasing  power  of  chickens 92 

United  States 92 

California 92 

Seasonal  variation  in  prices,  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles 103 

Receipts  of  poultry,  cold  storage 105 

Live  poultry.  California 105 

Dressed  poultry.  California 109 

Cold  storage  holdings,  Pacific  area 114 

Per  capita  consumption  of  poultry 117 

Exports  and  imports  of  poultry  and  poultry  products ,  118 

The  tariff  on  eggs  and  poultry 123 

The  international  trade  in  poultry  and  poultry  products 124 

Foreign  poultry  statistics 131 

North  and  South  America  (Canada,  Mexico,  Argentine  and  other  South 

American  countries) 131 

Effect  of  European  climate  on  poultry  production  and  quality 133 

European    statistics    (United    Kingdom.    Ireland.    Denmark,    Germany, 
Russia.    Poland.    Latevia,    France,  Belgium.  Holland,  Italy,  Hungary, 

Roumania  Bulgaria) 134 

Africa  (Egypt,  Algeria.  Morocco.  South  Africa) 141 

China,  Japan,  Australia,  New  Zealand 142 

International  trade — poultry 145 

Cost  of  producing  eggs,  Sonoma  County,  California.  1924-1925 146 

Size  of  flocks 146 

Production  as  related  to  costs  and  profits 151 

Hatching  and  commercial  egg  farms 153 

Appendix — Tables 155 


STATION  PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE  FOB  FREE  DISTRIBUTION 


No. 

253.   Irrigation   and   Soil   Conditions   in  the 
Sierra   Nevada   Foothills,    California. 

261.  Melaxuma    of    the    Walnut,    "Juglans 

regia." 

262.  Citrus   Diseases   of   Florida   and   Cuba 

Compared  with  Those  of  California. 

263.  Size   Grades   for  Ripe   Olives. 

268.   Growing  and  Grafting  Olive  Seedlings. 
273.  Preliminary  Report  on  Kearney  Vine- 
yard  Experimental   Drain. 

275.  The     Cultivation     of     Belladonna     in 

California. 

276.  The  Pomegranate. 

277.  Sudan   Grass. 

278.  Grain    Sorghums. 

279.  Irrigation   of  Rice   in    California. 
283.  The  Olive  Insects  of  California. 
294.   Bean   Culture  in   California. 

304.  A  Study  of  the  Effects  of  Freezes  on 

Citrus    in    California. 
310.   Plum    Pollination. 

312.  Mariout  Barley. 

313.  Pruning      Young      Deciduous      Fruit 

Trees. 
319.   Caprifigs    and    Caprification. 

324.  Storage  of   Perishable  Fruit  at  Freez- 

ing Temperatures. 

325.  Rice     Irrigation     Measurements     and 

Experiments    in    Sacramento    Valley, 

1914-1919. 
328.   Prune   Growing   in    California. 
331.   Phylloxera-Resistant    Stocks. 
335.   Cocoanut    Meal    as    a    Feed    for   Dairy 

Cows   and   Other  Livestock. 

339.  The    Relative    Cost    of    Making    Logs 

from   Small   and   Large  Timber. 

340.  Control     of     the     Pocket     Gopher     in 

California. 

343.  Cheese    Pests    and    Their    Control. 

344.  Cold    Storage    as    an   Aid  to    the   Mar- 

keting of  Plums. 

346.  Almond    Pollination. 

347.  The  Control  of  Red  Spiders  in  Decid- 

uous Orchards. 

348.  Pruning  Young  Olive  Trees. 

349.  A    Study    of    Sidedraft    and    Tractor 

Hitches. 

350.  Agriculture      in      Cut-over      Redwood 

Lands. 

352.  Further  Experiments  in  Plum  Pollina- 

tion. 

353.  Bovine   Infectious   Abortion. 

354.  Results  of  Rice  Experiments  in   1922. 

357.  A    Self-mixing    Dusting    Machine    for 

Applying      Dry       Insecticides       and 
Fungicides. 

358.  Black    Measles,     Water    Berries,     and 

Related  Vine  Troubles. 

361.  Preliminary    Yield    Tables    for    Second 

Growth   Redwood. 

362.  Dust   and  the  Tractor  Engine. 

363.  The  Pruning  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali- 

fornia. 

364.  Fungicidal    Dusts    for    the    Control    of 

Bunt. 

365.  Avocado  Culture  in  California. 

366.  Turkish  Tobacco  Culture,   Curing  and 

Marketing. 

367.  Methods  of  Harvesting  and  Irrigation 

in   Relation  of  Mouldy  Walnuts. 

368.  Bacterial  Decomposition  of  Olives  dur- 

ing Pickling. 

369.  Comparison     of     Woods     for     Butter 

Boxes. 


BULLETINS 
No. 


370. 
371. 


372. 


373. 
374. 


375. 

376. 

377. 
379. 
380. 

381. 

382. 

383. 

385. 
386. 

387. 
388. 

389. 
390. 

391. 

392. 
393. 
394. 

S95. 
396. 

397. 

398. 
399. 


400. 
401. 

402. 
403. 
404. 
405. 
406. 
407. 


408. 
409. 


410. 
411. 
412. 

413. 
414. 


Browning  of  Yellow  Newtown  Apples. 

The  Relative  Cost  of  Yarding  Small 
and   Large   Timber. 

The  Cost  of  Producing  Market  Milk  and 
Butterfat  on  246  California  Dairies. 

Pear    Pollination. 

A  Survey  of  Orchard  Practices  in  the 
Citrus  Industry  of  Southern  Cali- 
fornia. 

Results  of  Rice  Experiments  at  Cor- 
tena,    1923. 

Sun-Drying  and  Dehydration  of  Wal- 
nuts. 

The   Cold   Storage  of   Pears. 

Walnut   Culture   in   California. 

Growth  of  Eucalyptus  in  California 
Plantations. 

Growing  and  Handling  Asparagus 
Crowns. 

Pumping  for  Drainage  in  the  San 
Joaquin    Valley,    California. 

Monilia  Blossom  Blight  (Brown  Rot) 
of  Apricot. 

Pollination    of   the    Sweet    Cherry. 

Pruning  Bearing  Deciduous  Fruit 
Trees. 

Fig   Smut. 

The  Principles  and  Practice  of  Sun- 
drying  Fruit. 

Berseem  or  Egyptian   Clover. 

Harvesting  and  Packing  Grapes  in 
California. 

Machines  for  Coating  Seed  Wheat  with 
Copper    Carbonate    Dust. 

Fruit    Juice    Concentrates. 

Crop  Sequences  at  Davis. 

Cereal  Hay  Production  in  California. 
Feeding  Trials  with  Cereal  Hay. 

Bark  Diseases   of  Citrus  Trees. 

The  Mat  Bean  (Phaseolus  aconitifo- 
lius). 

Manufacture  of  Roquefort  Type  Cheese 
from   Goat's   Milk. 

Orchard  Heating  in  California. 

The  Blackberry  Mite,  the  Cause  of 
Redberry  Disease  of  the  Himalaya 
Blackberry,    and   its   Control. 

The  Utilization  of  Surplus  Plums. 

Cost  of  Work  Horses  on  California 
Farms. 

The  Codling  Moth  in  Walnuts. 

Farm-Accounting  Associations. 

The  Dehydration  of  Prunes. 

Citrus  Culture  in  Central  California. 

Stationary  Spray  Plants  in  California. 

Yield,  Stand  and  Volume  Tables  for 
White  Fir  in  the  California  Pine 
Region. 

Alternaria  Rot  of  Lemons. 

The  Digestibility  of  Certain  Fruit  By- 
products as  Determined  for  Rumi- 
nants. 

Factors  Affecting  the  Quality  of  Fresh 
Asparagus  after  it  is  Harvested. 

Paradichlorobenzene  as  a  Soil  Fumi- 
gant. 

A  Study  of  the  Relative  Values  of  Cer- 
tain Root  Crops  and  Salmon  Oil  as 
Sources  of  Vitamin  A  for  Poultry. 

The  California  Poultry  Industry;  a 
Statistical   Study. 

Planting  and  Thinning  Distances  for 
Deciduous  Fruit  Trees. 


No. 

87.   Alfalfa. 
117.  The    Selection    and    Cost    of    a    Small 

Pumping  Plant. 
127.  House   Fumigation. 
129.  The  Control  of  Citrus   Insects. 
136.  Melilotus    indica    as    a    Green-Manure 

Crop  for  California. 
144.   Oidium    or    Powdery    Mildew    of    the 

Vine. 
157.   Control  of  the  Pear  Scab. 
160.   Lettuce  Growing  in  California. 
164.   Small  Fruit  Culture  in  California. 
166.  The   County  Farm  Bureau. 
170.   Fertilizing     California     Soils     for    the 

1918   Crop. 
173.  The    Construction    of    the    Wood-Hoop 

Silo. 

178.  The  Packing  of  Apples   in  California. 

179.  Factors    of    Importance    in    Producing 

Milk  of  Low  Bacterial  Count. 
190.  Agriculture  Clubs  in  California. 
199.   Onion    Growing   in    California. 

202.  County   Organizations   for   Rural   Fire 

Control. 

203.  Peat   as   a   Manure    Substitute. 

209.  The  Function  of  the  Farm  Bureau. 

210.  Suggestions  to  the  Settler  in  California. 
212.   Salvaging    Rain-Damaged    Prunes. 
215.   Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in  California. 
217.  Methods   for   Marketing  Vegetables   in 

California. 
220.   Unfermented   Fruit   Juices. 
228.  Vineyard  Irrigation  in  Arid  Climates. 

230.  Testing  Milk,    Cream,    and   Skim   Milk 

for  Butterfat. 

231.  The    Home    Vineyard. 

232.  Harvesting    and    Handling    California 

Cherries    for    Eastern    Shipment. 

234.  Winter  Injury  to  Young  Walnut  Trees 

during  1921-22. 

235.  Soil     Analysis     and     Soil     and     Plant 

Inter-relations. 

236.  The    Common     Hawks     and     Owls    of 

California    from    the    Standpoint    of 
the  Rancher. 

237.  Directions  for  the  Tanning  and  Dress- 

ing of  Furs. 

238.  The  Apricot  in  California. 

239.  Harvesting     and     Handling     Apricots 

and  Plums  for  Eastern  Shipment. 

240.  Harvesting    and    Handling    Pears    for 

Eastern   Shipment. 

241.  Harvesting  and  Handling  Peaches  for 

Eastern   Shipment. 
243.  Marmalade  Juice  and  Jelly  Juice  from 

Citrus  Fruits. 
244    Central  Wire  Bracing  for  Fruit  Trees. 
245.  Vine   Pruning  Systems. 

247.  Colonization    and    Rural    Development. 

248.  Some    Common    Errors    in   Vine  Prun- 

ing and  Their  Remedies. 

249.  Replacing    Missing    Vines. 

250.  Measurement   of   Irrigation   Water   on 

the  Farm. 

252.  Supports  for  Vines. 

253.  Vineyard  Plans. 

254.  The  Use  of  Artificial  Light  to  Increase 

Winter   Egg    Production. 


CIRCULARS 
No. 
255. 


256. 
257. 
258. 
259. 
261. 
262. 
263. 
264. 

265. 
266. 

267. 

269. 
270. 
272. 

273. 
274. 

276. 

277. 

278. 
279. 
281. 


282. 

283. 

284. 
285. 
286. 
287. 
288. 
289. 
290. 
291. 

292. 
293. 
294. 
295. 

296. 

298. 

299. 
300. 
301. 
302. 
303. 

304. 
305. 
306. 

307. 
308. 


Leguminous  Plants  as  Organic  Fertil- 
izer   in    California    Agriculture. 

The    Control   of  Wild   Morning   Glory. 

The  Small-Seeded  Horse  Bean. 

Thinning   Deciduous   Fruits. 

Pear  By-products. 

Sewing  Grain  Sacks. 

Cabbage  Growing  in   California. 

Tomato  Production  in  California. 

Preliminary  Essentials  to  Bovine 
Tuberculosis  Control. 

Plant   Disease   and   Pest   Control. 

Analyzing  the  Citrus  Orchard  by 
Means   of   Simple   Tree   Records. 

The  Tendency  of  Tractors  to  Riso  in 
Front:    Causes   and   Remedies. 

An  Orchard  Brush  Burner. 

A  Farm  Septic  Tank. 

California  Farm  Tenancy  and  Methods 
of  Leasing. 

Saving  the  Gophered  Citrus  Tree. 

Fusarium  Wilt  of  Tomato  and  its  Con- 
trol by  Means  of  Resistant  Varieties. 

Home  Canning. 

Head,  Cane,  and  Cordon  Pruning  of 
Vines. 

Olive  Pickling  in  Mediterranean  Coun- 
tries. 

The  Preparation  and  Refining  of  Olive 
Oil   in    Southern    Europe. 

The  Results  of  a  Survey  to  Determine 
the  Cost  of  Producing  Beef  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

Prevention  of  Insect  Attack  on  Stored 
Grain. 

Fertilizing  Citrus  Trees  in  California. 

The  Almond   in   California. 

Sweet  Potato  Production  in  California. 

Milk  Houses  for  California  Dairies. 

Potato   Production    in   California. 

Phylloxera  Resistant  Vineyards. 

Oak  Fungus  in  Orchard  Trees. 

The  Tangier  Pea. 

Blackhead  and  Other  Causes  of  Loss 
of  Turkeys  in  California. 

Alkali   Soils. 

The    Basis    of    Grape    Standardization. 

Propagation    of   Deciduous   Fruits. 

The  Growing  and  Handling  of  Head 
Lettuce  in   California. 

Control  of  the  California  Ground 
Squirrel. 

The  Possibilities  and  Limitations  of 
Cooperative  Marketing. 

Poultry   Breeding   Records. 

Coccidiosis  of  Chickens. 

Buckeye  Poisoning  of  the  Honey  Bee. 

The   Sugar  Beet   in   California. 

A  Promising  Remedy  for  Black  Measles 
of  the  Vine. 

Drainage  on   the  Farm. 

Liming  the  Soil. 

A  General  Purpose  Soil  Auger  and  its 
Use  on  the  Farm. 

American    Foulbrood   and  its    Control. 

Cantaloupe  Production  in  California. 


The  publications  listed  above  may  be  had  by  addressing 

College  of  Agriculture, 

University  of  California, 

Berkeley,  California. 

15w-ll,'26 


